2008 DDP discussion, questions, rants and vents

[Nancyg56]

It really puzzles me how people on the plan whether free or purchased feel that it's a real deal when they don't even eat all the food they order. How is that a great value? Folks have thrown away a lot of the food they "purchased" just because it's included, not because they were famished. Would you do that if you had to pay OOP? Why do you think Disney would be happy to continue doing that? And why are you willing to use your "pre-paid" tip money even if you get lousy service? I don't think the 2007 DDP was a great value. I think it was a grossly underpriced marketing tool to try to get people hooked on TS restaurants and to keep them on property spending more money on the other stuff.

Lots of DISers claim they love the DP just for the convenience of not having to carry cash. They are annoyed that they have to take cash for tips next year. HUH? Anyone can use their keys to "pay" for anything & not carry any cash. Disney could just as easily have a package that just includes meals with little or no savings. That would be convenient if that's all you're concerned about.

Disney is under no obligation to be fair. Nor are they required to offer any money saving plans or packages. People can wish all they want but to be outraged is rediculous.

First of all, I am not outraged by the change. I do think that the change is drastic and I will need to look very closely at the money before I decide if the plan is a value to my family.

There is a difference between a savings and a value. Yes, I may save money but that is not all I need to consider when making this purchase. I need to determine if the savings is enough to entice me to purchase a package from Disney, give them my money in advance knowing that my OOP will now be a consideration, lock my dining plans to Disney participating restaurants. I may save money but I may not think the saving is enough to justify making the purchase. In that case I simply will not, and then I expand my dining options.

I realize that the DDP is a marketing tool and it was a very good one, drawing many families into Disney restaurants, creating an almost frenzied rush to reserve places in now almost always full TS restaurants, freeing up money for wine and cocktails and additional shopping, after all the meals were inexpensive. The changes upset people because now we need to decide where the rubber meets the road, and the experience we have enjoyed will not be the same.
The discussion is just that, a discussion that details the changes and how we are going to address the changes as we plan our trips. Just as Disney is under not obligation to be "fair" customers are under no obligation to blindly assume that every change will be in their best interests.

 

[pilferk]

I personally think that the waiters are CRAZY to have wanted the 18% gratuity removed and a few people here have made comments about how they do not feel they should tip....so the waiters lose unfortunately.

Just a quick point: By all accounts, it was DISNEY that wanted the auto tip removed, not the servers. The servers wanted it to remain, but the rest of the bargaining unit didn't care enough to make a stand beyond making Disney offers some "token" (IMHO) concessions (lower the auto tip party size from 8 to 6, and applying the auto tip to DDE diners).

 

[antkim]

Just a quick point: By all accounts, it was DISNEY that wanted the auto tip removed, not the servers. The servers wanted it to remain, but the rest of the bargaining unit didn't care enough to make a stand beyond making Disney offers some "token" (IMHO) concessions (lower the auto tip party size from 8 to 6, and applying the auto tip to DDE diners).

If that is the case then my point is mute however that is not how it has been explained to me. I have experienced first hand waiters that complained that the tip was included in the DDP...I have also read posts here that explain why CM's do not want the tip included.

Again...if I have been mis informed then I take back my comment!

 

[bicker]

It effectively doesn't matter, antkim: Both sides agreed to it, so they both "did" it.

 

[antkim]

It effectively doesn't matter, antkim: Both sides agreed to it, so they both "did" it.

Yup.... and I still think that it was a mistake on the servers end to agree if they had a real say....I am sure you agree with me. There is proof in not only this thread but many others that people will just not tip if they feel it is not their financial "duty". Being in the the service industry for MANY years in the past I would've been thrilled to know that I was assured AT LEAST 18%....I am giving the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that there are those (like myself) that leave addtitional $$$ if I feel that 18% was not enough for the level of service I received. I say that because there are so many that do not leave tips whether it is not their custom or they just plain out don;t want to! People just do not realize that if the resturant were to pay the server minimum wage or higher (so that the consumer does not have to tip) then the menu item costs would just increase....as this has been pointed out as well!!

 

[tarheelmjfan]

It effectively doesn't matter, antkim: Both sides agreed to it, so they both "did" it.

It appears to me that it does matter. Servers were on the DIS asking people to contact WDW regarding removing the tip, while the negotiating was in progress. They realized they were outnumbered in the union & hoped the powers that be would respond more favorably, if it were guests complaining.

It seems many are blaming the servers for the gratuity removal, & using that as a reason to possibly tip less. Kind of like, "they made their bed......". OTOH, I haven't seen many people expressing their displeasure in WDW enough to no longer dine on property. Sure, many say they will now go offsite to dine, but that's because it's no longer as good of a deal to dine onsite. Their decision isn't triggered by a desire to punish WDW for the change. Even if it is, WDW can more easily absorb the repercussions than the servers who are depending on gratuities to support their families can. By what I've read on the DIS, many people who are looking to place blame on someone are singling out the servers. As long as people are looking for someone to blame, it will matter.

 

[bicker]

It seems many are blaming the servers for the gratuity removal, & using that as a reason to possibly tip less.

Bad logic, I agree. This is a NO HARM NO FOUL situation: Look at the offer. If you like it, take it. If you don't like it, pass it by. Either way, tip the servers as you should.

As long as people are looking for someone to blame, it will matter.

So that is the problem. People need to stop insisting on living a life of blame.

 

[Melissa Rauchmiller]

After spending the last few hours going through all these posts-I still feel that we will benefit from the DDP. We were supposed to be atWDW in Nov.but due to uncontrolable circumstances it looks like we will be moving our trip to next March. We have 3 teenage boys and a 21 year old daughter and just having meals paid for in advance is a HUGE advantage in planning our trip. Not having to budget the extra $ for meals for 13 days is a big weight off our shoulders . We can order what we want and not have to worry if we have enough money to enjoy our vacation to the fullest. I am not concerned with saving-as long as I eat $40 worth of food a day I (we) are getting our moneys worth . I do not mind paying OOP for the tip ,this way I can tip what I feel they deserve. As far as the appetizer goes (there are 9 of us that will be there) we wondered if anyone would want to eat their entree after having to order 9 appetizers......so I can live w/o the appetizer. My question is since our trip has already been booked for Nov. 2007(with the DDP) will it stay the same or will they readjust it for the 2008 DDP plan? Any body know about that

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Bad logic, I agree. This is a NO HARM NO FOUL situation: Look at the offer. If you like it, take it. If you don't like it, pass it by. Either way, tip the servers as you should.

So that is the problem. People need to stop insisting on living a life of blame.

I'm one of the few who thought the current DDP was underpriced. I'm constantly amazed that anyone can find fault with the DDP as it is now, but many have.

You know, it's simply too much food. How can we not be angry that WDW would force us to order & eat so much? The fact that they're giving us this food at a fraction of it's value just adds insult to injury. Not only that, but they force us to tip the server 18%. Okay, so they're paying that for us, but that's beside the point. Noone should be forced into getting so much food, at such a great price, then have someone else pay the tip. The nerve!!!

It gets worse! Now, WDW has made the decision to offer less food & give the guest control over how much they tip. What gave them the idea that the guests wanted that? There has to be someone to blame for this. We're certain that taking advantage of every loophole possible isn't why Disney decided to cut back on the plan. That makes about as much sense as saying the constant complaints of too much food & forced tipping could be culprit. People who think those are the reasons "really need to grow up." Now that we've eliminated possible reasons for the cutbacks, we can better establish who's really at fault. So, who's left? It must be the servers. I'm sure they didn't like getting a mandatory 18% gratuity on all DDP guests. They'd much rather take their chances on possible non-tippers & people who complained about having to leave 18% tip, when it was included in the plan.

Obviously, many people need something &/ or someone to complain about it. The fact that many complained about the current DDP proves that. It would be a shame, if the servers were given the blame for the gratuity change & possibly be prejudged harshly. It seems some look for reasons to rationalize a lesser tip, rather than tip based solely on the service received.

 

[antkim]

I'm one of the few who thought the current DDP was underpriced. I'm constantly amazed that anyone can find fault with the DDP as it is now, but many have.

You know, it's simply too much food. How can we not be angry that WDW would force us to order & eat so much? The fact that they're giving us this food at a fraction of it's value just adds insult to injury. Not only that, but they force us to tip the server 18%. Okay, so they're paying that for us, but that's beside the point. Noone should be forced into getting so much food, at such a great price, then have someone else pay the tip. The nerve!!!

It gets worse! Now, WDW has made the decision to offer less food & give the guest control over how much they tip. What gave them the idea that the guests wanted that? There has to be someone to blame for this. We're certain that taking advantage of every loophole possible isn't why Disney decided to cut back on the plan. That makes about as much sense as saying the constant complaints of too much food & forced tipping could be culprit. People who think those are the reasons "really need to grow up." Now that we've eliminated possible reasons for the cutbacks, we can better establish who's really at fault. So, who's left? It must be the servers. I'm sure they didn't like getting a mandatory 18% gratuity on all DDP guests. They'd much rather take their chances on possible non-tippers & people who complained about having to leave 18% tip, when it was included in the plan.

Obviously, many people need something &/ or someone to complain about it. The fact that many complained about the current DDP proves that. It would be a shame, if the servers were given the blame for the gratuity change & possibly be prejudged harshly. It seems some look for reasons to rationalize a lesser tip, rather than tip based solely on the service received.

In my defense (and I am not sure you are responding to my post or not?)...I have been told by CM's from all sides that this was a "negotiated" contract and that both sides wanted change. I had a waiter tell me that he hated the fact that the tip was included and I have read hear that they (servers) don't want it included. My point is that as a server it would be a better decision to take the 18% than to risk something less or even nothing! There are those that feel it is not their responsibility to tip....in their eyes it is up the restaurant to pay better. Well this is just absurd.

As for me...I went during free dining last year. For each and every TS meal I had I left extra $$$ for the server. Sometimes it was deserved and sometimes it was not HOWEVER I felt that because I was dining for free it was the least I could do!

 

[bless7ings]

OK it is time for me to vent. I am still upset about the automatic gratuity included for parties over 6!

How is that going to work? Are they going to ask for a credit card hold when making the reservation? If we have free dining or the dining program, the meal is already paid for, so how are they going to make it automatic? Can we pay the tip in cash, therefore we end up paying plus or minus what we feel anyway? I do not like that control taking out of our hands and I donot want to ruin my vacation to have to fight about it everytime I eat!

 

[tarheelmjfan]

In my defense (and I am not sure you are responding to my post or not?)...I have been told by CM's from all sides that this was a "negotiated" contract and that both sides wanted change. I had a waiter tell me that he hated the fact that the tip was included and I have read hear that they (servers) don't want it included. My point is that as a server it would be a better decision to take the 18% than to risk something less or even nothing! There are those that feel it is not their responsibility to tip....in their eyes it is up the restaurant to pay better. Well this is just absurd.

As for me...I went during free dining last year. For each and every TS meal I had I left extra $$$ for the server. Sometimes it was deserved and sometimes it was not HOWEVER I felt that because I was dining for free it was the least I could do!

I'm not sure what took place, but wish people could accept the fact that the gratuity is no longer included w/o placing blame. FWIW, I'm not saying you did that. I realize you were posting what you'd heard, as others have done. I was actually replying to the notion that it doesn't matter who wanted the change.

The parties involved don't seem to agree on who wanted the change. There's no way we can know for sure. I do know that several servers on the DIS, some new members trying to rally support, & some who've been here for several years, have said they were basically sacrificed by the union in favor of others. That makes more sense to me than the other way around. Common sense tells me their better off with an included gratuity than taking their chances. I definitely don't think they'll benefit from the change. It's hard to imagine that they wouldn't realize that. Regardless, since we don't know for certain who wanted the change, I think it would be best to move beyond the blame game. IMHO, as long as people feel the need to question whose decision it was, it does matter what they think. Thinking the servers got greedy casts them in a negative light & has the potential of prejudicing people against them. It's not fair to do that, especially since we don't really know if that was the case. People love WDW. If the Disney execs. were the reason for the change, people will get over it. They don't necessarily feel the same loyalty for the servers. If they think the servers got greedy, that will give some an excuse to not tip or tip less. That's the way I see it anyway.

 

[Tricia1972]

OK it is time for me to vent. I am still upset about the automatic gratuity included for parties over 6!

How is that going to work? Are they going to ask for a credit card hold when making the reservation? If we have free dining or the dining program, the meal is already paid for, so how are they going to make it automatic? Can we pay the tip in cash, therefore we end up paying plus or minus what we feel anyway? I do not like that control taking out of our hands and I donot want to ruin my vacation to have to fight about it everytime I eat!

This is purely speculation, but I would think that it will be on your bill at the end of the meal. Just like any additional items would appear on your bill (appetizer, alcoholic beverages, etc) so will the gratuity.

Example:

Meal - $100.00 (6 Credits used and $0 Due because of Dining Plan)
Alcoholic Beverages - $15 (No credits used as they're not applicable)
Gratuity - $20.70 (Which is 18% of $115)

Total Due $35.70

Does that help?

 

[kdzgon]

It appears to me that it does matter. Servers were on the DIS asking people to contact WDW regarding removing the tip, while the negotiating was in progress. They realized they were outnumbered in the union & hoped the powers that be would respond more favorably, if it were guests complaining.

It seems many are blaming the servers for the gratuity removal, & using that as a reason to possibly tip less. Kind of like, "they made their bed......". OTOH, I haven't seen many people expressing their displeasure in WDW enough to no longer dine on property. Sure, many say they will now go offsite to dine, but that's because it's no longer as good of a deal to dine onsite. Their decision isn't triggered by a desire to punish WDW for the change. Even if it is, WDW can more easily absorb the repercussions than the servers who are depending on gratuities to support their families can. By what I've read on the DIS, many people who are looking to place blame on someone are singling out the servers. As long as people are looking for someone to blame, it will matter.

FWIW, it doesn't matter to me. IF the servers (or, perhaps, those servers that) wanted the auto gratuity removed, my thought would be that they felt it was more fair to be compensated based on their performances - how does that translate to "being greedy"??

My sense is also few of those so-called "greedy" servers would logically "want" Disney to remove the tip portion (AND the appetizer) while only reducing the cost by $1. (Somehow, I would doubt that the servers had this info available to them in advance, anyway.) If they indeed were motivated by greed, it would be in their best interests to retain the appetizer, increasing the likelihood of a larger tab upon which to calculate the gratuity. A logical server would also recognize there would be a chance their income might suffer as a result of the effective price increase.

Bottom line, IMO Disney increased the cost of the DDP by a significant amount, but nevertheless it is still just a line item when budgeting a vacation. If it out-prices a family, that family will need to decide where to make changes (or even decide to forgo a WDW trip). There is no way, no how that any of this is the "fault" of the servers, and I hope that in the long run they are not harmed by the changes.

 

[bicker]

I think it is more likely for servers to benefit from greater throughput than from value-added sales. 15% x 100 x 10 > 15% x 120 x 8

 

[Tess'smom]

I think it is more likely for servers to benefit from greater throughput than from value-added sales. 15% x 100 x 10 > 15% x 120 x 8

I am not sure I am following your response Bicker. My understanding of throughput is the amount of work that a computer/system can do over a given period of time. What does the number of bits passing through a data communication system have to do with tipping on the dining plan? Plese explain.

 

[bicker]

If a number of parties over the course of a night decline to order appetizers (now that they're not included), then the restaurant can turn-over that table quicker, and the server can more quickly get their next set of diners. That will mean that servers could actually end up serving more tables in total over the course of a whole shift of work. That increased throughput could be worth more money than the extra money they'd have made from the higher tip they would have gotten from the party paying more because they ordered appetizers.

Contrast that with dessert, where already a good number of diners either were willing to skip it completely even when it was included ("Ugh! I'm so stuffed -- I cannot eat another bite!) or take it to-go (which still leads to better turn-over).

So that's why both the restaurant and the server could significantly benefit from including the dessert and excluding the appetizer.

 

[Tess'smom]

Oh, I get it now. Thank you for explaining.

 

[kdzgon]

If a number of parties over the course of a night decline to order appetizers (now that they're not included), then the restaurant can turn-over that table quicker, and the server can more quickly get their next set of diners. That will mean that servers could actually end up serving more tables in total over the course of a whole shift of work. That increased throughput could be worth more money than the extra money they'd have made from the higher tip they would have gotten from the party paying more because they ordered appetizers.

Contrast that with dessert, where already a good number of diners either were willing to skip it completely even when it was included ("Ugh! I'm so stuffed -- I cannot eat another bite!) or take it to-go (which still leads to better turn-over).

So that's why both the restaurant and the server could significantly benefit from including the dessert and excluding the appetizer.

Yes, but it could just as easily be $75x15%x10<$100x15%x8. (I'm using the OP's example of $100 - I used the $100, and figured $25 would be from "value-added" services. Appetizers seem to run $8 - $14 ea on the avg.)

Traditionally, the assumption is the best way to increase profitability (vs increasing revenues) is through sales of value-added items, but only in part because appetizers (and desserts) often have a higher profit margin than the main course. There is a certain amount of non-revenue time lost "turning" the tables as well. I agree Disney may be looking to speed up turn-over by eliminating appetizers, but I would say that would be to increase both guest satisfaction (lots of complaints about TS availability) and increase the amt of time guests spend in the parks vs dining (the longer the time in the parks, the more $$ spent - statistical marketing assumption). I'm also not sure I agree with any assumption that increased turnovers may significantly increase server income.

 

[bless7ings]

This is purely speculation, but I would think that it will be on your bill at the end of the meal. Just like any additional items would appear on your bill (appetizer, alcoholic beverages, etc) so will the gratuity.

Example:

Meal - $100.00 (6 Credits used and $0 Due because of Dining Plan)
Alcoholic Beverages - $15 (No credits used as they're not applicable)
Gratuity - $20.70 (Which is 18% of $115)

Total Due $35.70

Does that help?

Yes, that helps with the visual example thank you. But, still another question. We never had anything that was not on the plan so therefore I am not familar with an extra bill. So they present you with a bill and people then either pay by cash or credit card, right? So if a person wants to add more they do it that time? What if I don't agree with the 18% tip? How do people think the individual restaurants will handle this? And I say individual, because they are. I would imagine it will depend on the restaurant and the type of management. I am glad for one thing...the way will be paved by Sept of 2008 by others that are in the same boat!