PDA

View Full Version : With all the new changes to DDP, will non-participating restaurants lose business?


kathyg
08-06-2006, 09:37 AM
I must agree with the posts on the other thread, that these restaurants did not pull out voluntarily. Just Disney trying to keep more of the pie to itself.

With the changes, do you think the restaurants that are no longer participating will lose business? I think they will..especially those in Epcot. If that's the case, maybe they will ban together and offer their own incentives. Just a thought.

newholidayx2
08-06-2006, 09:44 AM
Most of them still take the DDE card which is what we mostly use

english rose 47
08-06-2006, 10:08 AM
What are the changes to DDP. What restaurants are pulling out??? i HAD HEARD MORE WER BEING ADDED!!!

bicker
08-06-2006, 10:28 AM
I just posted the differences between the two brochures, in terms of restaurants and eateries, in the DDP Sticky Thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=13877209&postcount=532

I think the changes are too consistent (i.e., all non-Disney owned restaurants) to be anything other than a deliberate move on Disney to stop helping its competitors. I think some of those restaurants will be hurt, to some extent, especially Maya Grill, Tangierine Cafe, Marrakesh, Nine Dragons, San Angel Inn, and Teppanyaki.

MagicMe
08-06-2006, 10:57 AM
Wow, I think Epcot restaurants (and therefore Epcot itself) will suffer. Many of the restaurants I like happen to be at various resorts and we usually only have 1 or 2 at Epcot during our week stay. We are going in early Nov so we are paying for the dining plan. This year we planned on 4 dinners there figuring since we already payed for the DDP we could experiment without it hitting our pocket to hard. I plan on a trip in Dec07 and now I'm not so sure if I will add the dining plan or not. Properly won't hit Epcot for dinner in Dec07.

bicker
08-06-2006, 11:09 AM
I don't think it will have enough impact to affect Epcot itself, though. I think there will be some guests avoiding the Dining Plan, and if those restaurants work to satisfy those guests' specific needs, they'll do fine.

Merriwind
08-06-2006, 11:16 AM
I think Epcot will be very interesting next year. Very few TSs are left there on the DDP. Will those just be impossible to get into? Will the non-participaing restaurants lose a lot of business/be very open? Time will tell...

DaisyD
08-06-2006, 11:55 AM
Wow! That is great news for those that avoid the DDP. Hopefully they will bring back the good food that was taken away. I'm all for it.

Merriwind
08-06-2006, 12:00 PM
Wow! That is great news for those that avoid the DDP. Hopefully they will bring back the good food that was taken away. I'm all for it.

Better food would be great! :thumbsup2

Tissa
08-06-2006, 12:13 PM
In my case the non-participating restaurants won't loose my business but Disney will in the way of not purchasing the Dining plan.

JimMIA
08-06-2006, 12:44 PM
In my case the non-participating restaurants won't loose my business but Disney will in the way of not purchasing the Dining plan.
My thoughts exactly.

We'll use DDP in November and after that we'll use DDE for character meals and an occasional Epcot dinner and eat most of our meals offsite.

Cookie Princess
08-06-2006, 01:17 PM
I am extremely disappointed to see Chefs De France, San Angel and Alfredo's no longer on the plan. Also, I think Coronado Springs Resort might lose some hotel customers as all of their eateries no longer paticipate in the DDP. Any one purchasing the DDP would make out better dining wise at the other moderate resorts.

Of course, all of this is subject to change and most likely will change somewhat.

travellady
08-06-2006, 01:52 PM
Our family does not participate in the DDP when we visit WDW. I did an analysis after our last trip and determined we spent less by not participating. We often share 2 meals between the 3 of us (2 adults, 1 12 year old son), and though we do a few TS meals, we don't do as many as the DP provides for. Also, I don't like having to plan so far ahead where and when to eat and having a DDP seems like added pressure because it does require planning and scheduling long before we actual visit. I don't know what I'll want to eat tomorrow, never mind a year from now. I may have 1 or 2 special places where I'll want to eat when visting WDW, but that's as much planning I want to do.

I suspect many visitors to the parks and resorts don't use the DDP nor make ADRs. So, restaurants not participating probably won't lose business and those of us who don't make plans way far ahead may find we can actually now get into TS restaurants without making plans way in advance. In the past, many TS restaurants were difficult to get into due to DDP holders feeling the pressure to make ADRs lest they not make best use of their DDPs.

Lostgirlz
08-06-2006, 02:49 PM
just spoke to dining, chefs, marakesh are owned by Disney. He said the tempenyaki (sp) did this last year where they held out and then siad ok they will be on it, now they are listed as pending. In fact all the ones not showing are listed as pending. I dunno what to do. I hate to cancel chef's, marakesh, and raglen only to have them be included at the end, but I also don't want to be in trouble with geting times to other dinners cause things ar ebooked up. :confused3 :furious: Yeah so much for listening to guests and making things perfect.

bicker
08-06-2006, 03:01 PM
Chefs de France is owned by Paul Bocuse, Gaston Lenotre and Roger Verge.

katallo
08-06-2006, 03:11 PM
I'm so glad I read this thread. We were set to add the DP and now have decided against it. So many of our favorites have been removed. Well, at least our favorites will still get our business.

Pedler
08-06-2006, 05:01 PM
There could be a few different reasons they are not listed as being on the plan:

First Disney could have pulled them out of it decided that they were better off doing it for just Disney Owned Places. It also makes some places more available for non Dinning plan patrons.

Second is that Disney may be renegotiating the T & C's of the contract and it wasn't done in time to get the brochure out. This does appear to be historically late for package sales to take this long to appear so that may be what held it up. If that's the case you may see some more places added one that takes place.

Third it may be that all of these places decided to go it alone without the dinning plan. I have always said that the dinning plan puts the non Disney owned places between a rock and a hard place. They get the low reimbursement of the dinning plan in exchange for more business but they also loose out on higher paying customers that the dinning plan may squeeze out and they get none of the other benefits of increased spending on souvenieers or higher occupancy rates.

I would tend to lean towards the second option that the terms and conditions are still being negotiated. It seems a little too convenient that all or a majority of the non Disney owned places decided to opt out of 2007. It could be that they all come to the same conclusion but it seems unlikely.

It also seems unlikely that Disney would summarily want to exclude all of these places, especially the WS places. Part of the attraction of the dinning plan is its flexibility and ease of use. Epcot would become the anti dinning plan park with most places not taking it. That would be a problem for Disney and could reduce dinning plan / package sales undoing some of the benefits Disney has gotten from the "Cruise Like" experience.

I could see the non Disney places saying that they need to negotiate better terms and in essence playing a game of chicken with Disney to see what those terms are. When the plan first came out most WS places were not on it and some early reports did mention an impact it had on the places not taking the plan. The pretty much all came on later in the year. If I had to speculate I would guess that at least for the WS places Disney would make an effort to get them on the plan. Otherwise Epcot becomes a PR issue for Disney with dinning plan guests.

english rose 47
08-06-2006, 06:57 PM
I see ALL of downtown disney is OUT I'm really bumped out about Planethollywood not being onit We were really looking forward to that our first night and now I.m worried that Garden Grill in Epcot will be hard to get adr's for. Any chance Planethollywood will be back on plan ???

JimMIA
08-06-2006, 07:06 PM
Seems to me the most sensible approach is to make ADRs for where you want to eat and then see what shakes out on the DDP.

You can always cancel ADRs, and you can add the DDP very late in the process.

I think this is a bad moment to be changing plans. A number of people have said this is the same pattern they've seen before - the plan announced and then many additions after the initial announcement.

There is no need, or advantage, to panicking.

Lewisc
08-06-2006, 07:16 PM
I think at least some of the restaurants will wind up participating.

BUT I think the new changes may cause DDP to lose some customers. Without those restaurants the plan is no longer a slam dunk. Without the plan I'd skip dessert with most CS meals. I'd probably share or skip appetizers and/or dessert.

bicker
08-06-2006, 07:17 PM
There is no need, or advantage, to panicking. Good advice. Even if things stay as they are, there is really no advantage to panicking. And the reality is that there is surely a chance that any of the restaurants will be back on the Dining Plan.

BUT I think the new changes may cause DDP to lose some customers. Without those restaurants the plan is no longer a slam dunk.I'm not sure the impact will be quite so significant.

Mom of Sleepy, Bashful and BabyDoc
08-06-2006, 07:31 PM
I think some of those restaurants will be hurt, to some extent, especially Maya Grill, Tangierine Cafe, Marrakesh, Biergarten, Nine Dragons, San Angel Inn, and Teppanyaki.

Am I missing something? I see Biergarten on the brochure for lunch and dinner................

http://adisneyworld.disney.go.com/m...ts/07Dining.pdf

sorry, link isn't working. But it's on this thread; http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1187766

bicker
08-06-2006, 07:35 PM
Am I missing something? Nope, it's just my aging eyes, Mom. Biergarten is definitely on the list. I had thought it was definitely a Disney-owned restaurant... that make so much more sense no.

I'll correct my message.

Mom of Sleepy, Bashful and BabyDoc
08-06-2006, 07:38 PM
Well, if it goes down this way, that's just one more reason for us not to get the dining plan. We'll stick with the DDE and just eat less! HA!! There's a thought for someone like me who's dieting...... :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

JimMIA
08-06-2006, 07:38 PM
I think at least some of the restaurants will wind up participating.

BUT I think the new changes may cause DDP to lose some customers. Without those restaurants the plan is no longer a slam dunk. Without the plan I'd skip dessert with most CS meals. I'd probably share or skip appetizers and/or dessert.
Oh, I agree. If this is the final list of restaurants, we'll pay OOP and eat mostly offsite. But I don't think this is the final lineup. I hope not.

bluejasmine
08-06-2006, 07:48 PM
I sure hope the list will change because while so far I have always gotten the plan for free, I was planning on paying for it the next trip because its defanitely worth it for my family but not with all the changes. They took several of my fave CS places off and a few TS that we liked. What good is the plan if you have to eat somewhere you dont want to? :confused3 My family will go back to almost all CS and maybe one to two TS per trip..

Did I already say how HAPPY I am that I can still enjoy the original DDP atleast one last time before the changes? :teeth:

Mom of Sleepy, Bashful and BabyDoc
08-06-2006, 07:48 PM
Nope, it's just my aging eyes, Mom. Biergarten is definitely on the list. I had thought it was definitely a Disney-owned restaurant... that make so much more sense no.

I'll correct my message.


No problem, Bicker. :) That's just one of my new fav's, that's why I noticed it.

Boy, it's hard figuring out what is Disney owned or not Disney owned. It's interesting, though.

You know, I just have that old idea in my head that if you give people a good product at a good price(and good service), their going to go for it.

I certainly hope that holds true for those other restaurants. I would hate to see any of those restaurants be hurt by this...........dining at Disney is so unique. It's part of the draw for us. :love:

bicker
08-06-2006, 08:02 PM
You know, I just have that old idea in my head that if you give people a good product at a good price(and good service), their going to go for it. Gosh, I wish the world was still like that. I used to be a management consultant -- I used to teach Phil Crosby's "Quality is Free" philosophy. How mortifying it was for us in the industry when we came to the realization that it just was not the case -- that there really is a point beyond which higher levels of quality work against the objective of a business enterprise. :( What's encouraging, though, is that we can expect, at least, a fair level of value, quality, service, etc., it not our ideal.

Pedler
08-06-2006, 08:59 PM
Gosh, I wish the world was still like that. I used to be a management consultant -- I used to teach Phil Crosby's "Quality is Free" philosophy. How mortifying it was for us in the industry when we came to the realization that it just was not the case -- that there really is a point beyond which higher levels of quality work against the objective of a business enterprise. :( What's encouraging, though, is that we can expect, at least, a fair level of value, quality, service, etc., it not our ideal.

As the saying goes...Superior Marketing will beat a superior product almost every time.

Or as someone once told me:

Sales is petty theft, Marketing is organized crime.

Brian Noble
08-06-2006, 11:58 PM
On a realted note: a serial entrepreneur who had gotten his doctorate from my alma mater came back to give a talk about tech start-ups every four years or so.

His major piont? There is a reason that the business people all get more equity than the technology people. Namely: the plan is more important than the product.

DMKEDM
08-07-2006, 04:51 AM
What good news to hear that some of the "missing restaurants" may come back into the DDP! Our particular favorites were not listed on the 2007 plan and we'd been feeling sad--and conflicted about whether to use DDP in 2007.

For us, DDP is a great deal. We use our TS meals at dinner and almost always "spend" within a dollar or two of the cost of the the whole DDP per day...to us it feels like getting a daily CS meal and snack for free!

But it IS a lot of food. We probably wouldn't eat that much if it weren't prepaid and discounted.

And we also don't like "locking in" meal choices way in advance...but we've solved that by making lists of where we think we'll want to go, choosing, and then making our priority seating calls before we leave home (thank heavens for that habit--just yesterday I booked our dinners for our T-giving trip, and already both California Grill and Le Cellier were fully booked at our preferred times). Then, when we arrive, if we feel like something different on a particular day we just call Disney Dining and see if we can make a change. Most of the time we can; sometimes we can't. But it's nice to have a "guarantee" of a priority seating reservation ... sort of a "back-up" type plan.

We've been to WDW twice on the DDP so far (third trip this coming November; jury's still out on whether we'll use it for our 2007 trip)...I think it's one of the best deals Disney offers. Psychologically, I love having the cost of food already paid for when we arrive. Actually, we get what feels to us like "more than our money's worth." But it's so good that while I'm sad about the possibility that our favorite Epcot (and Downtown Disney) eateries will not participate, I find myself thinking "well, it really was too good to be true."

We're going w/friends in January...we've got a "planning dinner" coming up next week to go over restaurant lists and choices to decide whether we'll use the DDP or not...we'll be at WDW for five nights (five TS meals!); I've done a "preliminary look" and I know there are considerably more than five restaurants we all like still on the list of participants...but whether we'll want to give up planning to go to our favorites (restrict ourselves to the DDP choices) remains to be seen.

One really good thing about DDP: we have all the way up to the day before we leave to decide. It's nice that Disney doesn't make you choose whether to do DDP or not at the time you book...

Lewisc
08-07-2006, 10:08 AM
I think we can exclude your third point. EoS was supplying food that was within $.50 of what Disney was paying them. EoS was actually paid less if a guest used a AAA discount.

I can't imagine Disney wants to market the dining plan with almost nothing at DTD,the restaurants from the WS missing and nothing at CSR. It's not realistic to expect non Disney owned restaurants would be willing to continue to provide $70 worth of food for a $25 reimbursement. Also not reasonable to expect the Pepper Market will continue to provide a $25+++ meal for $8-$10. Originally PM limited desserts, in recognition of the more expensive entrée offerings but they're not even doing that. I don't know if the restaurants want more $$$ or the ability to exclude some items. Add on guests sharing one meal and the problem is compounded.

I'll go with your second point. When the plan was first introduced restaurants were added after the fact. The restaurants may be trying to figure out if separating the credits into child and adult will help or hurt them. Disney needs to get the package released now so they can sell it for 2007. Disney can always add restaurants later.


There could be a few different reasons they are not listed as being on the plan:

First Disney could have pulled them out of it decided that they were better off doing it for just Disney Owned Places. It also makes some places more available for non Dinning plan patrons.

Second is that Disney may be renegotiating the T & C's of the contract and it wasn't done in time to get the brochure out. This does appear to be historically late for package sales to take this long to appear so that may be what held it up. If that's the case you may see some more places added one that takes place.

Third it may be that all of these places decided to go it alone without the dinning plan. I have always said that the dinning plan puts the non Disney owned places between a rock and a hard place. They get the low reimbursement of the dinning plan in exchange for more business but they also loose out on higher paying customers that the dinning plan may squeeze out and they get none of the other benefits of increased spending on souvenieers or higher occupancy rates.

MommyPoppins
08-07-2006, 10:50 AM
In my case the non-participating restaurants won't loose my business but Disney will in the way of not purchasing the Dining plan.


I agree. We won't even go for "Free dining" if they offer it again. We'll just take our AP rate rooms and cheapo FL Res Seasonal passes, and eat at CS and a couple TS with the DDE card. Less money for disney. I think it's a stupid idea to cut all those Epcot restaurants. They're practically the only ones worth going to in the first place! :rolleyes:

DisOrBust
08-07-2006, 12:18 PM
hese changes go into effect for 2007 correct???

bicker
08-07-2006, 12:47 PM
hese changes go into effect for 2007 correct???As far as we know. However, please be aware that such changes could be applied in 2006, if Disney wished to, without providing much more noticed to guests than a new brochure at check-in. That probably won't happen, but it could.

Lewisc
08-07-2006, 01:04 PM
As far as we know. However, please be aware that such changes could be applied in 2006, if Disney wished to, without providing much more noticed to guests than a new brochure at check-in. That probably won't happen, but it could.

Anything is possible but most of us think the restaurants have an agreement with Disney to accept MYW Dining guests. Most of us think the agreement expires 12/31/06.

We're not sure if Disney is negotating with the restaurants. A meal at a restaurant like Chefs De France can cost as much as HDD which requires 2 credits. What may be needed is to create a 1.5 credit restaurant or possibly allow a $10 surcharge for a few non-Disney restaurants.

bicker
08-07-2006, 01:40 PM
Why wouldn't they just go all the way and make these restaurants 2TS (again)? Both Disney and the restaurant gets something out of that: Disney can list the extra restaurants as participating, and the restaurants get double the reimbursement.

Lewisc
08-07-2006, 01:55 PM
Why wouldn't they just go all the way and make these restaurants 2TS (again)? Both Disney and the restaurant gets something out of that: Disney can list the extra restaurants as participating, and the restaurants get double the reimbursement.

Those restaurants were never 2 credits. Chefs wasn't packed even at one credit. Too many guests would skip those restaurants at 2 credits. Disney would get to show the restaurants as participating but the restaurants wouldn't get much business.

It might work if Coral Reef and Le Cellier also went to 2 credit but that doesn't seem to be happening.

I think the restaurants could make money, even if guests don't order adult beverages, if they're allowed to produce a representative fixed price menu. Increase revenue by eliminating sharing. Although it wouldn't produce huge savings portion size could be reduced. Posters say the portions are large enough to share. Reduce the portions, possibly offer seconds if an occasional guests has a large appetite. What would an extra serving of pasta cost?

I suspect the restaurants will blink and wind up just having to drop the expensive items from the menu. Disney, and guests, don't seem to want restrictions.

bicker
08-07-2006, 02:02 PM
Chefs wasn't packed even at one credit. Too many guests might skip those restaurants at 2 credits. Disney gets to show the restaurant as participating but the restaurants wouldn't get much business.And the business they do get will be at a price they're willing to business at. How is that any worse, for either Disney or the restaurant, than either the current (2006) situation with those restaurants as 1TS, or the projected (2007) situation with those restaurants as non-participating? My point is that it is a win-win, for Disney and the restaurant. Each gets something out of making them all 2TS.

I think the restaurants could make money, even if guests don't order adult beverages, if they're allowed to produce a representative fixed price menu.That should be unacceptable to Disney as it is clear that their customers don't want restrictions like that. It is better to say, "Order whatever you want from the regular menu," than "Some restaurants restrict you to a limited menu." There is no up-side for Disney there.

Increase revenue by eliminating sharing.Oh yes, that'll go over well. :rolleyes:

Although it wouldn't produce huge savings portion size could be reduced.You're right about it not producing huge savings -- rather it would be a very marginal amount of savings.

I suspect the restaurants will blink and wind up just having to drop the expensive items from the menu.That's assuming that Disney really wants to help their competition. There needs to be enough in it for Disney. Practically-speaking, normal guests (i.e., guests other than those on online forums) will not hold it against Disney if these restaurants are charging them 2TS, so Disney really has no reason to budge here.

Pedler
08-07-2006, 02:09 PM
Why wouldn't they just go all the way and make these restaurants 2TS (again)? Both Disney and the restaurant gets something out of that: Disney can list the extra restaurants as participating, and the restaurants get double the reimbursement.


I have a feeling that they wouldn't get many takers at 2 TS credits. I can't imagine paying that for Alfredo's and such. It just isn't on par with the other signature restaurants.

I think that the plan really is a tough proposition for the non Disney owned places. Remember that Disney doesn't need to make money on the plan on food itself at the restaurants they own. It could break even and still come out ahead with all of the other benefits. The fact that they have offered it free demonstrates that.

The non Disney owned places on the other hand have to make it on the receipts at the register. Disney has really put them in a tough bind. They can take the plan and take Disney's fixed amount of reimbursement. That probably reduces their profitability per patron meaning that they make significantly less money per DDP patron than non DDP patron. The other option is to not take the dinning plan and have a decent sized part of the potential customers be on the dinning plan and not want to eat at their restaurant. I would imagine this is particularly true when Disney offers the free dinning. Then they have a much smaller pool of potential customers meaning less revenue to spread the fixed costs over. Any way you slice it I would guess that they are making less profit overall since the DDP came into effect.

My take on it is that most likely they are still negotiating the contracts for the non Disney owned places but need to get information out to start selling packages now thus the exclusion of these places. As time moves on I would think they will start to be added to the plan. They may not like it but Disney really has them in a bind.

bicker
08-07-2006, 02:14 PM
I have a feeling that they wouldn't get many takers at 2 TS credits.I'm not sure I've made my point clear: Will they get more "takers" if they're non-participating?

Pedler
08-07-2006, 02:19 PM
And the business they do get will be at a price they're willing to business at. How is that any worse, for either Disney or the restaurant, than either the current (2006) situation with those restaurants as 1TS, or the projected (2007) situation with those restaurants as non-participating? My point is that it is a win-win, for Disney and the restaurant. Each gets something out of making them all 2TS.

The problem the non Disney owned places may have is covering their fixed cost which I imagine is quite high. Its not like they can survive if they only are operating at 25% capacity but are able to charge their normal prices. There is some minimum rate they need to operate at with the normal prices to break even. Of course with DDP reimbursement that rate is higher. The problem they could run into is that if they are 2 TS credits they most likely won't get much DDP business and if they don't take it then most people on it will probably not eat there. You can just imagine what that would do to the Epcot places during the free dinning promos where many of the on site guests are on the plan.



That should be unacceptable to Disney as it is clear that their customers don't want restrictions like that. It is better to say, "Order whatever you want from the regular menu," than "Some restaurants restrict you to a limited menu." There is no up-side for Disney there.


Yeah, I don't think Disney would go for that at all.


That's assuming that Disney really wants to help their competition. There needs to be enough in it for Disney. Practically-speaking, normal guests (i.e., guests other than those on online forums) will not hold it against Disney if these restaurants are charging them 2TS, so Disney really has no reason to budge here.

I do think that Disney does want as much participation as possible, at least at the restaurants in the parks. It makes the plan and thus rack rate rooms easier to sell if they have more locations. On the flip side I don't think Disney cares if a non Disney place is 1 or 2 TS credits. That is the restaurants decision on their reimbursement. The problem the restaurants have is the one I stated above.

In the dark of the night I do truly think that the non Disney Owned places probably wish the Disney Dinning Plan would just go away. Unfortunately for them that isn't likely to happen. They will have to make a choice between less profit per person or a much smaller pool of potential customers.

Lewisc
08-07-2006, 02:21 PM
Reducing portion size might increase revenue if it reduced sharing. The savings wouldn't come from the dollar value of the food but rather ending the TOO MUCH FOOD TO EAT mentality. Setting up a buffet for salad, soup and a few appetizers would give restaurants a way to charge every guest. It may be possible to feed a customer for "one credit". It's another thing to feed a table for "one credit".

With the exception of CSR the restaurants can't win. You're right Disney doesn't need them. Disney probably won't let them restrict the menu, although Teppanyaki found a way to fine tune the menu. The restaurant doesn't win if the Dining Plan costs them customers. Does it really matter if they lose customers because they don't participate or if they lose customers because they're forced to go to signature status? Disney really can't have a resort without any participating restaurants. Barring any contractual restrictions Disney could just open another CS restaurant at CSR. On a temporary basis they could even set up a CS by using part of the convention center. BUT if there are contractual restriction Disney will have to find a way to accomodate CSR guests.



And the business they do get will be at a price they're willing to business at. How is that any worse, for either Disney or the restaurant, than either the current (2006) situation with those restaurants as 1TS, or the projected (2007) situation with those restaurants as non-participating? My point is that it is a win-win, for Disney and the restaurant. Each gets something out of making them all 2TS.

That should be unacceptable to Disney as it is clear that their customers don't want restrictions like that. It is better to say, "Order whatever you want from the regular menu," than "Some restaurants restrict you to a limited menu." There is no up-side for Disney there.

Oh yes, that'll go over well. :rolleyes:

You're right about it not producing huge savings -- rather it would be a very marginal amount of savings.

That's assuming that Disney really wants to help their competition. There needs to be enough in it for Disney. Practically-speaking, normal guests (i.e., guests other than those on online forums) will not hold it against Disney if these restaurants are charging them 2TS, so Disney really has no reason to budge here.

Pedler
08-07-2006, 02:23 PM
I'm not sure I've made my point clear: Will they get more "takers" if they're non-participating?

No, I understood what you were saying. My point was that functionally being 2 credits wouldn't get you significantly more people than if you didn't take the plan. Or to put it another almost no one on the dinning plan would use 2 credits for the WS places so functionally it wouldn't have any real impact on the bottom line. If al they got were 2 tables a night of 2 TS dinning plan people then it in essence has no impact on the bottom line.They still have the problem of DDP folks not going there and thus being excluded from a significant number of potential guests.

Lewisc
08-07-2006, 02:30 PM
I'm not sure I've made my point clear: Will they get more "takers" if they're non-participating?

The difference may be so small that it won't matter. The restaurants would get so few MYW customers at 2 credits that they might be better off not being on the plan. The restaurant could feature some menu items that aren't possible, even with 2 credits. 2 credits helps Disney but really doesn't help the restaurant.

My guess is the restaurants will blink but we might not like the menu changes.

I see Peddler basically made the same point.

If all the non-Disney restaurants stay off the plan some guests might decide against the plan, if the restaurants are signature status the guests might buy the plan but not eat in those restaurants.

debbi801
08-07-2006, 02:36 PM
For us, it means a return to the way we used to eat. Mostly counter service and a few TS. We won't purchase the dining plan unless it changes back before our next trip. We like eating in EPCOT, that is where the majority of our dining was spent on our last trip.

I'm not going to not eat in EPCOT and I hope others feel the same way. It would be a tragedy for these restaurants to get ignored because of them not being on the dining plan.

Lewisc
08-07-2006, 02:51 PM
I'm confused if you don't purchase the dining plan, and like eating in EPCOT, why wouldn't you patronize restaurants that don't participate with MYW Dining?



For us, it means a return to the way we used to eat. Mostly counter service and a few TS. We won't purchase the dining plan unless it changes back before our next trip. We like eating in EPCOT, that is where the majority of our dining was spent on our last trip.

I'm not going to not eat in EPCOT and I hope others feel the same way. It would be a tragedy for these restaurants to get ignored because of them not being on the dining plan.

Pedler
08-07-2006, 03:02 PM
I'm not going to not eat in EPCOT and I hope others feel the same way. It would be a tragedy for these restaurants to get ignored because of them not being on the dining plan.

I think that there will be people on the dinning plan that won't go there because they are not on it. I would imagine it would actually be a large percentage of people on the dinning plan wouldn't go to a TS place that isn't on it.

Mulan'sMom
08-07-2006, 03:23 PM
We loved the DDP last October - and with 2 adults and one child, saved almost $260 on a seven-day trip. We used our CS for breakfast at our resort everyday. I'm not paying OOP for Pepper Market, which I understand is quite pricey - plus a 10% add-on tip. In fact, I'll have to do the math and decide whether to get the DDP and stay at a moderate resort, or go without and stay at the Swolphin with a nurse's discount.

CarolA
08-07-2006, 03:24 PM
I just posted the differences between the two brochures, in terms of restaurants and eateries, in the DDP Sticky Thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=13877209&postcount=532

I think the changes are too consistent (i.e., all non-Disney owned restaurants) to be anything other than a deliberate move on Disney to stop helping its competitors. I think some of those restaurants will be hurt, to some extent, especially Maya Grill, Tangierine Cafe, Marrakesh, Nine Dragons, San Angel Inn, and Teppanyaki.

I disagree. I would not be surprised if the mangement teams of those resturants got together and said ENOUGH... This cannot be as profitable for them as people who pay your own way. So they give Disney a choice, UP the reimbursment or they walk.....which will hurt Disney probably as much as it hurts them.

If they do lose some business it may be that it was so 'unprofitable" that they think the increase from folks like me just walking in will make up for it!

Pedler
08-07-2006, 03:51 PM
I disagree. I would not be surprised if the mangement teams of those resturants got together and said ENOUGH... This cannot be as profitable for them as people who pay your own way. So they give Disney a choice, UP the reimbursment or they walk.....which will hurt Disney probably as much as it hurts them.

If they do lose some business it may be that it was so 'unprofitable" that they think the increase from folks like me just walking in will make up for it!

It could be though I still see it as unlikely. When you have chains such as Planet Hollywood also "opting out" at the same time as everyone else is it just seems coincidental. A chain like Planet Hollywood is probably not going to make this decision on the local level and most likely isn't going to care if they show solidarity with their non Disney owned brethren or not. It just seem like there is too diverse a group of restaurants when you take into account the Downtown Disney Places too have them create some organized front. Who knows. Time will tell.

I do seem to remember back when the DDP was first rolled out and the Epcot places were not on it people coming back and saying that they were feeling the effect in less people in the restaurants.

BillSears
08-07-2006, 04:01 PM
I can see Disney talkint to the restaurant managers now...

"Yes you'll lose $5.00 per meal under our plan but you'll make up for it in volume of meals served."

Hey maybe they can make the Pepper Market the first counter service signature meal and charge 2 CS credits?

Lostgirlz
08-07-2006, 04:22 PM
It has caused some issues for the ones like me who are going around the start of the year. We are going on our honeymoon, first time to disney, so we were not expecting this when I booked adr's beofre they released this news. 3 of mine are off the list now trying to figure out what to do about those risk it and end up not being able to get into a back-up later, or change it then have to try ad change it back. From what I was told the plan will go into effect jan 1 2007.

Lewisc
08-07-2006, 04:35 PM
Hey maybe they can make the Pepper Market the first counter service signature meal and charge 2 CS credits? or move it from the BEST CS (Disney calls it quick service) deal to the WORST TS deal.

bicker
08-07-2006, 04:42 PM
The problem the non Disney owned places may have is covering their fixed cost which I imagine is quite high.They didn't have a problem before the Dining Plan. All the Dining Plan does is give Disney a little bit of a competitive advantage. If the other restaurants cannot take a little bit of competition, and cannot offer something special that Disney doesn't, then perhaps it is time for Disney to take over some of those restaurants. I am pretty confident that Disney would love to do that at CSR, and perhaps that objective is underlying Disney's perspective with regard to this issue in general: Why should Disney try so hard to help its competitors compete against them?

bicker
08-07-2006, 04:46 PM
Reducing portion size might increase revenue if it reduced sharing.I cannot see it reducing sharing substantially more than it would tend to reduce patronage in general, in the long-term. Some people are likely to have very negative reactions to substantially smaller portions, and those negative reactions are almost surely going to overwhelm the tiny cost savings from buying less food ingredients.

The savings wouldn't come from the dollar value of the food but rather ending the TOO MUCH FOOD TO EAT mentality. .... It's another thing to feed a table for "one credit".I'd love to hear what frequent-share-ers have to say about that idea.

bicker
08-07-2006, 04:49 PM
Or to put it another almost no one on the dinning plan would use 2 credits for the WS places so functionally it wouldn't have any real impact on the bottom line.The bottom line for the restaurants perhaps, but I think it will safeguard patronage of the Dining Plan itself: Most people won't internalize the situation as "Gosh, these are all 2TS so it's just like they're non-participating for me." Rather, they'll internalize the situation as "Gosh, all the restaurants are participating." and then separately, "Let's choose one of these 1TS restaurants, so our credits can go further."

bicker
08-07-2006, 04:52 PM
I would not be surprised if the mangement teams of those resturants got together and said ENOUGH.As Pedler said, that's really unlikely. Even if 80% of them got together, I could see that -- NOT 100%, uniformly, across-the-board, without exception. Remember, they're not only competing with Disney's restaurants, but also with each other. Furthermore, there are likely to be some of these restaurants that were feeling the pain less than others.

Lewisc
08-07-2006, 05:04 PM
I suspect some of the more crowded restaurants would like to find a way to get rid of guests who are eating but not paying for a meal (sharing). This year Disney changed CRT and effectively put an end to sharing and to dessert only customers.



CSR is probably the only location where Disney needs the restaurant more than the restaurant needs the dining plan. CSR does a lot of convention business and those guests aren't on the dining plan. PM can afford to lose the dining guests who go to PM to order the rib eye steak. I doubt Disney wants to lose dining plan guests who stay at CSR or want to deal with the complaints when guests realize there isn't a participating restaurant in the resort.

Restaurants that are on Disney property, that pay Disney substantial rent and that help attract visitors aren't competitors as much as they're partners.

The problem isn't with the restaurants participating. The problem is some of us may not like what the restaurants do in order to profitably continue to participate. I'm sure PM could profitably participate, if they drop the menu items that aren't even offered at other resorts such as the rib eye steak.

Table service restaurants could drop the appetizer menu and just offer soup or salad. Drop the dessert menu and just offer ice cream and a few commercially prepared cake and pie items. Guests seem to be judging the restaurants based on the menu price of the most expensive entrées. Offer a 14 oz NY Strip steak but price it at $32.99.

The dining plan effectively puts a maximum price on the cost of food that a restaurant can profitably offer ALL guests, not just the MYW Dining guests.


They didn't have a problem before the Dining Plan. All the Dining Plan does is give Disney a little bit of a competitive advantage. If the other restaurants cannot take a little bit of competition, and cannot offer something special that Disney doesn't, then perhaps it is time for Disney to take over some of those restaurants. I am pretty confident that Disney would love to do that at CSR, and perhaps that objective is underlying Disney's perspective with regard to this issue in general: Why should Disney try so hard to help its competitors compete against them?

Pedler
08-07-2006, 05:12 PM
They didn't have a problem before the Dining Plan. All the Dining Plan does is give Disney a little bit of a competitive advantage. If the other restaurants cannot take a little bit of competition, and cannot offer something special that Disney doesn't, then perhaps it is time for Disney to take over some of those restaurants. I am pretty confident that Disney would love to do that at CSR, and perhaps that objective is underlying Disney's perspective with regard to this issue in general: Why should Disney try so hard to help its competitors compete against them?


True but before then they didn't have people getting essentially whatever they wanted at a fixed price if they took the dinning plan or risk having reduced sales because they are not on the dinning plan.

My whole point is that a restaurant that is not on the DDP will likely have significantly reduced sales than they did before the dinning plan didn't exist. I don't think its a case of not taking the dinning plan and having things the way there were 2 years ago. Their choice is to either take the dinning plan and live with the issues it brings to them or have less business than they did 2 years ago and see if they can make it on that.

While Disney has had dinning plans for many years this current version, the Disney Dinning Plan, seems to be far and away the most popular version they have had. As a result places that don't take it risk loosing a significant percentage of park patrons as potential customers. Some may say good riddance but you have to wonder if there are going to be enough non dinning plan people left to support the non dinning plan places. From reports back when the plan first started it appeared that the WS places were taking a hit from not being on the plan.

Pedler
08-07-2006, 05:18 PM
The bottom line for the restaurants perhaps, but I think it will safeguard patronage of the Dining Plan itself: Most people won't internalize the situation as "Gosh, these are all 2TS so it's just like they're non-participating for me." Rather, they'll internalize the situation as "Gosh, all the restaurants are participating." and then separately, "Let's choose one of these 1TS restaurants, so our credits can go further."

While I am sure that Disney does want as high as participation as they can get I think the restaurants need the dinning plan more than Disney needs the restaurants. They launched the DDP without the WS places and from the early reports it had a significant impact on the WS places. Disney was able to sell packages without the WS places on the plan. Heck when we first decided to use the plan they weren't on it. I was bummed but it wasn't a deal breaker. For some it is but I think Disney does have the upper hand in this case.

Lewis had an interesting suggestion that I think would work for those places that struggle on the plan. Let them have a family style appetizer and fixed desert. Most people focus on the entrees so those you would need to leave open. They already limit the drinks selection severely so I don't think it would be a stretch to say a DDP specific appetizer / desert is included and others may be purchased OOP.

crisi
08-07-2006, 05:19 PM
I must agree with the posts on the other thread, that these restaurants did not pull out voluntarily. Just Disney trying to keep more of the pie to itself.

With the changes, do you think the restaurants that are no longer participating will lose business? I think they will..especially those in Epcot. If that's the case, maybe they will ban together and offer their own incentives. Just a thought.

Maybe.

I've been eating table service at Disney and at Epcot for a long time...prior to the Dining plan restaurants were a little less busy, but they really didn't sit empty (Akershus and Marrakesh - less popular though not empty). We'd see people turned away from San Angel Inn and Teppanyaki. Watched people get told a two hour wait at Rose and Crown. Had a twenty minute wait for a table at two in the afternoon at Biergarten. Most restaurants in the outside world would kill to have the day in-day out table utilization rate of Epcot restaurants.

I have a feeling that for most restaurants, the dining plan has not been great. I'd wager dining plan guests don't order alcohol - they want to leave without an out of pocket bill and therefore stick to what is included. I'm not sure that the non-Disney restaurants will be crying crocodile tears over not being included (although I anticipate their contracts just weren't returned by the publishing date and by January most will be back on the plan) - while the dining plan may not be the best thing for their bottom line, there is an element of "don't bite the hand that holds your lease."

Eeyore2003
08-08-2006, 01:05 AM
Wow! That is great news for those that avoid the DDP. Hopefully they will bring back the good food that was taken away. I'm all for it.

Ditto, Le Cellier for one, although I don't know if they are still participating or not, has really gone down hill in our opinion since all of this. We are not even making ADR's there our next trip and we always have before. Hopefully, those of us using Disney Visa Points and the DDE for our meals will have better food with less crowds.

debbi801
08-08-2006, 09:33 AM
I'm confused if you don't purchase the dining plan, and like eating in EPCOT, why wouldn't you patronize restaurants that don't participate with MYW Dining?

I'm sorry. I guess I wasn't very clear. :) I will continue to eat in the various WS restaurants. I will not continue to purchase the dining plan.
:cool1:

ntsammy5
08-08-2006, 09:42 AM
I don't think it will have enough impact to affect Epcot itself, though. I think there will be some guests avoiding the Dining Plan, and if those restaurants work to satisfy those guests' specific needs, they'll do fine.

I agree. This is will hurt DDP. I certainly will think twice about getting it. Most of the place I want to eat are being removed!

MinnieGirl33
08-08-2006, 10:43 AM
Wow! That is great news for those that avoid the DDP. Hopefully they will bring back the good food that was taken away. I'm all for it.


:thumbsup2 :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

I'm with you!

PlutoLuvr
08-08-2006, 10:53 AM
Wow! That is great news for those that avoid the DDP. Hopefully they will bring back the good food that was taken away. I'm all for it.

:banana: :banana: :banana:

I'm with you, too!

DVC Sadie
08-08-2006, 12:33 PM
Wow! That is great news for those that avoid the DDP. Hopefully they will bring back the good food that was taken away. I'm all for it.


ITA! :thumbsup2
We never use the dining plan since it doesn't fit our needs so having more flexability and in some cases being able to walk up and get seated, this will be a huge bonus for us.

Laurajean1014
08-08-2006, 12:36 PM
I must agree with the posts on the other thread, that these restaurants did not pull out voluntarily. Just Disney trying to keep more of the pie to itself.

With the changes, do you think the restaurants that are no longer participating will lose business? I think they will..especially those in Epcot. If that's the case, maybe they will ban together and offer their own incentives. Just a thought.


I doubt it. For the people NOT on DDP they want a higher quality of food, when they want it. That option will never go away.