California Grill's gone WAAAY downhill...

[GailT]

NO Way we ate there our last night and it was fantastic, got the beef tenderloin, delicious. the night before went to AP, oh my GOD, my new place each trip, salmon, the berry cobbler (wow compared to 8 years ago it was so small but still good) Narcosses, the lobster was overcooked and so tuff, the waiter had to get it out of the shell, turned me agains going back there agagine. Kona carfe, great food, first time, big Kahuna, second time Tonga toast, I ate the middle, I am sweet but this was to much tirning. my Favorite thing the whole time was Ohanas breakfast,

 

[SuperRob]

Economically speaking, it's highly unlikely that the dining plan itself is the cause of lower quality.

First, they don't know if you're on the dining plan until the end of the meal, so it's unlikely that they lower quality on dining plan meals (as some have suggested). And even if someone is on a free dining plan, they won't know that either, or at least, not until the end of the meal. Not a fan of these conspiracy theories.

Second, the dining plan is still paid for (usually), and while there is a small discount if you get the most expensive options, what you're really paying for is the convenience of pre-paying for a meal. Most guests to not get full or over-value for these plans. If Disney wants to increase profitability on these plans, there are better ways to do it, like removing features or requiring more credits ... both of which they've done for 2011.

Third, even in the case of a free dining promotion, you have no way to know who's on that promotion and who isn't when they order. Are you going to risk lowering the quality of food even for paying customers? That's not normally a risk you would take. Free Dining is offered to get guests into the restaurant in the off season to keep the restaurants fuller and (counter-intuitively) reduce costs.*

Disney could be intentionally reducing quality across the board to try to increase profitability at the restaurants, but it's unlikely to be related to the dining plan itself. However, I believe this scenario is entirely unlikely as well. Food quality can be a health issue and it's something Disney takes very seriously. Given that there seems to be as many positive reviews as negative, it's more likely just general variations in quality, amplified by the Internet.

Personally, I think the OP likely just had an epically bad night, a perfect storm of service and maintenance failures. For management to have done nothing to fix the situation is tragic (because it leads to posts like these), but I'm not sure why the OP also didn't INSIST on being compensated. If I had had this happen, I would have insisted that the entire table's meals were comped.

Imagine the following ...

1. There's a new chef, not quite up to speed yet, so a handful of meals come out not done correctly.
2. Maintenance missed the loose chair.
3. Dishwasher didn't thoroughly clean the class.
4. Server also missed the dirty glass.

Any one of those things might be something you'd handle and go on about your meal without issue. Start combining them, rare as it may be, and you'd have a pretty bad night. Have all of them happen at the same table? Yeah, that's a disastrous experience.

(*Studies have shown that busier restaurants tend to have higher quality, because of a variety of factors, such as the Hawthorne Effect, less "slack" time for the staff, and generally more attention being paid to overall quality than in slow times. I've also observed the same anecdotally. That said, there will still be issues. Also, a higher number of customers per hour reduces the cost of producing each meal (staffing is amortized across the meals produced), so keeping the restaurants full reduces costs for those meals. Yes, I was a business major in college. )

 

[mmay60046]

Economically speaking, it's highly unlikely that the dining plan itself is the cause of lower quality.

First, they don't know if you're on the dining plan until the end of the meal, so it's unlikely that they lower quality on dining plan meals (as some have suggested). And even if someone is on a free dining plan, they won't know that either, or at least, not until the end of the meal. Not a fan of these conspiracy theories.

Second, the dining plan is still paid for (usually), and while there is a small discount if you get the most expensive options, what you're really paying for is the convenience of pre-paying for a meal. Most guests to not get full or over-value for these plans. If Disney wants to increase profitability on these plans, there are better ways to do it, like removing features or requiring more credits ... both of which they've done for 2011.

Third, even in the case of a free dining promotion, you have no way to know who's on that promotion and who isn't when they order. Are you going to risk lowering the quality of food even for paying customers? That's not normally a risk you would take. Free Dining is offered to get guests into the restaurant in the off season to keep the restaurants fuller and (counter-intuitively) reduce costs.*

Disney could be intentionally reducing quality across the board to try to increase profitability at the restaurants, but it's unlikely to be related to the dining plan itself. However, I believe this scenario is entirely unlikely as well. Food quality can be a health issue and it's something Disney takes very seriously. Given that there seems to be as many positive reviews as negative, it's more likely just general variations in quality, amplified by the Internet.

Personally, I think the OP likely just had an epically bad night, a perfect storm of service and maintenance failures. For management to have done nothing to fix the situation is tragic (because it leads to posts like these), but I'm not sure why the OP also didn't INSIST on being compensated. If I had had this happen, I would have insisted that the entire table's meals were comped.

Imagine the following ...

1. There's a new chef, not quite up to speed yet, so a handful of meals come out not done correctly.
2. Maintenance missed the loose chair.
3. Dishwasher didn't thoroughly clean the class.
4. Server also missed the dirty glass.

Any one of those things might be something you'd handle and go on about your meal without issue. Start combining them, rare as it may be, and you'd have a pretty bad night. Have all of them happen at the same table? Yeah, that's a disastrous experience.

(*Studies have shown that busier restaurants tend to have higher quality, because of a variety of factors, such as the Hawthorne Effect, less "slack" time for the staff, and generally more attention being paid to overall quality than in slow times. I've also observed the same anecdotally. That said, there will still be issues. Also, a higher number of customers per hour reduces the cost of producing each meal (staffing is amortized across the meals produced), so keeping the restaurants full reduces costs for those meals. Yes, I was a business major in college. )

That's too logical. The conspiracy theories are more entertaining.

 

[Paul in CT]

Many of us who have been going to WDW for a while believe that PART of the problem might be with the DDP. Personally, I would never blame the DDP for everything I find disappointing but would just suspect that it might be one part of the overall downward trend. (As I see it.)

But to each their own! My biggest quibble is pricing anyway. I don't find that we get fair market value at the current price structure (without the DDP) and just the thrill of dining at WDW doesn't offset that. As always, YMMV.

My biggest quibble with the signature restaurants is also pricing. We have had generally excellent experiences at the signature restaurants, but I would not want to dine there without the 20% discount of TIW.

 

[Mickey&JoshNut]

Economically speaking, it's highly unlikely that the dining plan itself is the cause of lower quality.

First, they don't know if you're on the dining plan until the end of the meal, so it's unlikely that they lower quality on dining plan meals (as some have suggested). And even if someone is on a free dining plan, they won't know that either, or at least, not until the end of the meal. Not a fan of these conspiracy theories.

This is untrue...the servers ask you at the beginning of your meal if you are on the dining plan...they do this to in order to explain what you are and are not entitled to on this dining plan.

 

[topmonkeygirl]

We went to both Narcoossee's and Cali Grill our last (a couple of weeks ago) and we weren't impressed either. DH steak was O.K., I ordered the pork it was tough, dry, and flavorless. What a shame, I was really looking forward to trying this place out. They brought out our desert and written in the chocolate was Happy Birthday, it was nobodys birthday, it was our anniversary. Narcoossee's on the other hand was fabulous. The food was outstanding so was our server. We were going to skip watching the fireworks outside because of the cold but DH talked me into at least for a little while and we had already ordered desert and coffee. He waited until we came back in to bring it to us. He answered any question we had and was really nice, we'll definately be back. We both gave it a great big thumbs up. We don't plan on going back to Yachtsman either the service was great, but the food was just HoHum, not worth 2 credits. We were there 2 years ago so don't really remember the details just remember not being that impressed by it.

 

[SuperRob]

This is untrue...the servers ask you at the beginning of your meal if you are on the dining plan...they do this to in order to explain what you are and are not entitled to on this dining plan.

Point taken. In that case, I challenge anyone to provide proof that meals offered to DDP guests are lesser quality than non-DDP guests.

The CHEFS responsible for cooking your meal likely have no idea what plan (if any) you are on.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Economically speaking, it's highly unlikely that the dining plan itself is the cause of lower quality.

First, they don't know if you're on the dining plan until the end of the meal, so it's unlikely that they lower quality on dining plan meals (as some have suggested). And even if someone is on a free dining plan, they won't know that either, or at least, not until the end of the meal. Not a fan of these conspiracy theories.

Second, the dining plan is still paid for (usually), and while there is a small discount if you get the most expensive options, what you're really paying for is the convenience of pre-paying for a meal. Most guests to not get full or over-value for these plans. If Disney wants to increase profitability on these plans, there are better ways to do it, like removing features or requiring more credits ... both of which they've done for 2011.

Third, even in the case of a free dining promotion, you have no way to know who's on that promotion and who isn't when they order. Are you going to risk lowering the quality of food even for paying customers? That's not normally a risk you would take. Free Dining is offered to get guests into the restaurant in the off season to keep the restaurants fuller and (counter-intuitively) reduce costs.*

Disney could be intentionally reducing quality across the board to try to increase profitability at the restaurants, but it's unlikely to be related to the dining plan itself. However, I believe this scenario is entirely unlikely as well. Food quality can be a health issue and it's something Disney takes very seriously. Given that there seems to be as many positive reviews as negative, it's more likely just general variations in quality, amplified by the Internet.

Personally, I think the OP likely just had an epically bad night, a perfect storm of service and maintenance failures. For management to have done nothing to fix the situation is tragic (because it leads to posts like these), but I'm not sure why the OP also didn't INSIST on being compensated. If I had had this happen, I would have insisted that the entire table's meals were comped.

Imagine the following ...

1. There's a new chef, not quite up to speed yet, so a handful of meals come out not done correctly.
2. Maintenance missed the loose chair.
3. Dishwasher didn't thoroughly clean the class.
4. Server also missed the dirty glass.

Any one of those things might be something you'd handle and go on about your meal without issue. Start combining them, rare as it may be, and you'd have a pretty bad night. Have all of them happen at the same table? Yeah, that's a disastrous experience.

(*Studies have shown that busier restaurants tend to have higher quality, because of a variety of factors, such as the Hawthorne Effect, less "slack" time for the staff, and generally more attention being paid to overall quality than in slow times. I've also observed the same anecdotally. That said, there will still be issues. Also, a higher number of customers per hour reduces the cost of producing each meal (staffing is amortized across the meals produced), so keeping the restaurants full reduces costs for those meals. Yes, I was a business major in college. )

1. They do know who is on the plan but the quality of the meal isn't lowered on site, it's already been done. Service is a different issue.

2. What you're paying for is lower quality food which has already been factored in. Removing features and adding credits HAS been ongoing further increasing their profit while they additionally continue to dumb down and decrease the quality of the offerings.

3. They have done this and it's precisely due to the ddp because these are now the target demographic customers. They no longer care about impressing those of us who remember when quality was king at their restaurants.

4. You're willing to claim the OP had a bad night and bad nights occasionally happen but then state you would INSIST on being comped? If you must insist on being comped you first of all are not in a fine dining establishment and secondly are showing your true colors, IMO. Besides at a REAL fine dining establishment this wouldn't be necessary. It wouldn't be an issue. They would take care of you without your insisting. Note: I had a steak overcooked at The Palm. The waiter agreed, took it back, gave me a new and bigger steak. The manager took my steak and all sides off of our bill. I never said a word except to thank him and tipped the waiter very well. The Palm, a fine dining restaurant.

5. Studies??? I have an MBA, shall we take it to that level??? But more importantly I was good friends with three top Disney chef's of the past and three great servers. Only one chef is still there but due to these relationships I heard the inside information. I know what they liked and didn't like. Disney once cared, they still care now but it isn't about the quality...

 

[stephielela]

We ate at CG as our first meal on our trip (Dec 16th) and I was impressed. We had wanted to eat here 3 years ago but canceled due to time constraints. We all had different apps, and 3 of us had the filet for our entree. We also had my 2 year old with us. The service was great, they were very accomodating for my son who was in a less than stellar mood since we had been traveling ALL day and our ADR wasn't till 7:45. We were on the DxDP. The meal was everything I had hoped it woudl be.

That being said, I would never be comfortable paying the prices they ask if I wasn't on the DP. I feel that way about ALL the Disney restaurants to some degree, the cost is rarely justified. I do understand that they are in a position of needing to make money, and it's a theme park so it's to be expected. I am more inclined to believe that every restaurant has off nights, and maybe it is true that the food has gone downhill, but I have never eaten at CG before, and I routinely read great reviews about it, so I find it har to believe the quality has deteriorated that much. While we were there, Thomas Gibson came in to eat (he was the Candlelight Processional narrator the next night) and our waiter informed us all the celebs came there to eat. While I don't live my life based on what mildly famous people think is good, I do think that people who can afford to eat at the best places usually do, and they choose CG.

I am sorry the OP had such a bad experience, but I would encourage them to look back on their previous meals there and maybe give it one more try, at a later date. If it is still not up to par, then it would be more believable that the problem is permanent.

 

[disfanRN]

I just had the most fantastic Veal Chop there last week. I disagree. Now can a bad meal be served anywhere once and awhile? Yes, Im sure it can.

 

[Tara]

I just thought of one way CG has gone downhill! They used to have those long, skinny sugar packets that had the CG logo printed on them. Now they just have ordinary packets. I miss those - I still have a couple! (I have some Contemporary Resort swizzle sticks, too - not sure if they have those anymore or not.)

 

[branv]

I am curious about the pork tenderloin issue. More and more, restaurants are offering cooking levels for pork similar to steak. Whereas so many years ago it was unheard of and considered taboo, pork is so much "safer" now that they're going this route. I admit the first time I tried a fairly pink, almost purple in the center, pork tenderloin I was a little squeamish in my head, but my goodness was it delicious and unbelievably tender. And oddly, almost tasted like medium rare beef tenderloin. I know I've seen pics on this of some pretty medium to medium rare pork tenderloin at CG in the recent past, though goodness knows I'm not sure where they are now.

So just wondering if this was the particular situation with the OP's pork, if perhaps it was new to them that some restaurants do it this way, or if it truly was flat out rare even for the new methods of cooking. I mean, either way it's no excuse as a kitchen should never assume to what degree a patron wants their meat cooked...and should send any waiter back out to check if it's not on the order. Truly sorry to hear the entire experience wasn't up to expectations OP. Hopefully it was a glitch in an otherwise great trip.

 

[maminnie]

While the experience may be wonderful at CG, I just could not justify $38 to $44 meals (meat/fish, potato and vege). Without drinks, dessert, tax, or tip, it would start at $152 to $176 for our family of four (two adults, two teens).

We have been to Disney World many times and have eaten at many restaurants, some good and some not so good, some expensive and some reasonable. We have done the dining plan a number of times too. With some of the questionable reviews at CG, I decided not to reserve as it is just too expensive to potentially not be pleased with a meal. If it were just my husband and me, I might give it a try but with four, it is a lot of money.

 

[ElizabethB]

I second everything Peter Pirate has posted!

For details on our CG visit last month:

Cheese plate -- used to be amazing. This time, it had clearly been plated hours before. The cheeses were drying on the edges! Not the quality I expect in a restaurant charging $20 for a cheese plate.

Wines by the glass -- we ordered two red wines by the glass. The waitress bought them and asked if we would like to sample them first. Thank goodness we did. Both had been opened far, far too long and had oxidized beyond the point at which they could even be served. We ordered a bottle instead. But, it was shocking to us that a restaurant that had for years promoted itself as a showcase for California food and wine was now trying to serve up old wine for prices of $20 a glass.

Upshot -- top prices for reduced quality, so it's now off our list.

As for the effect of DDP -- we see it very clearly in the desserts. There is not a decent dessert to be had at any signature restaurant anymore. They are all mass produced, plated hours ago and a spin in one way or another on a zebra dome. Yuck.

Our best meals last month were Il Mulino, Fulton's, Bice, V&A, none of which take DDP. Jiko also was good (the one signature that seems to be bucking the trend -- although the dessert there was also a cheap, mass produced disappointment (oh for the freshly made donuts they used to feature)).

Oddly, we had a couple of tasty meals at one table service credit restaurants -- Sanaa and Kouzzina.

Overall, however, Disney has reduced quality significantly but has kept prices high. This from someone who lives in NYC and dines regularly at restaurants like Gramercy Tavern, Union Square Cafe, etc. Disney's prices are comparable to these restaurants, however the food no longer is.

 

[snykymom]

My biggest quibble with the signature restaurants is also pricing. We have had generally excellent experiences at the signature restaurants, but I would not want to dine there without the 20% discount of TIW.

Restaurant pricing is much more expensive at any tourist destination anywhere in the world. I traveled in Italy last year, and spent a few days on the Amalfi coast in a very tourist-y area. Cappucinos at the cafe bars cost twice what they did in Rome. Dinners at restaurants of equal quality/reputation were 50% higher in Positano than in Rome. The only things that were cheaper were dishes made from lemons (grown locally) and seafood (caught locally).

At California Grill, you're paying for the view as well as the food, and at the other signature restaurants, you're paying the "tourist tax." This is not just because it's Disney, but because it's a tourist destination.

Point taken. In that case, I challenge anyone to provide proof that meals offered to DDP guests are lesser quality than non-DDP guests.

The CHEFS responsible for cooking your meal likely have no idea what plan (if any) you are on.

The quality of the food is not lesser served to a DDP guest than to a non-DDP guest. The quality of the food is lesser to all guests because of the slimmer profit margins of the DDP. And the prices for the non-DDP guests are raised to offset the DDP costs. (Just like health insurance - the rates for insured patients are higher to offset the losses from non-insured patients.)

 

[MickeyNicki]

We ate there last month...so excited because we had dined there before and loved it...this time we felt rushed and the entrees were terrible, very poor quality filet and the chicken was dry as could be. The sides were overly salted and dry as well

Citrico's is still the best when it comes to signature restaurants

 

[Meteora]

Disney could be intentionally reducing quality across the board to try to increase profitability at the restaurants, but it's unlikely to be related to the dining plan itself. However, I believe this scenario is entirely unlikely as well. Food quality can be a health issue and it's something Disney takes very seriously. Given that there seems to be as many positive reviews as negative, it's more likely just general variations in quality, amplified by the Internet.

I don't have a real opinion on the impact of the DDP in general, but I think you're responding to an argument that most people wouldn't make. When people say the DDP has changed Disney dining, they don't typically mean that people on the DDP get a poorer quality of food than people who pay OOP. Their contention is that it's the very existence of the DDP that affects the overall mentality of food preparation and service.

I will say this, as someone who has studied industrial psychology--paying with cash or a credit card is very different than paying with credits. Credits remove the customer from the monetary exchange aspect--parting with credits isn't the same experience as parting with cash, from a psychological standpoint. By having people pay a lump sum at the beginning of their trip, Disney is distancing customers from the actual amount they are spending per meal. So if you get an eh steak and are asked to pay fifty dollars for it, you're more likely to say something than if you're asked to give over two credits (especially if you wouldn't have another use for those two credits because of when you're leaving). People in the former category are more likely to demand a financial compensation than people in the latter category, because while credits represent real money one has spent, most people treat them more casually than they would actual money that they had to lay out on the spot.

 

[TDC Nala]

First, they don't know if you're on the dining plan until the end of the meal,

They know you are on the dining plan from the time you order. Most restaurants ask before they seat you. They are required to explain the plan before the guests order, and dining plan orders are rung up differently from cash orders. And this would have nothing to do with the way restaurants treat guests on the dining plan and if they have an intent to treat dining plan guests differently, which they don't. The restaurants have declined in quality for everyone. Just because one thinks it's not worth complaining about because you were on the DDP and it was paid for anyway doesn't mean DDP guests are being treated differently from anyone else - nor does it mean you didn't pay for the meal. It's the same meal no matter how you paid for it. This goes for free dining too.

Are you going to risk lowering the quality of food even for paying customers?

This is exactly what they have done. Not in all dishes and ingredients and not to the point where health is affected. There are fewer choices and they are cutting back on more exotic or expensive ingredients (likely because they don't appeal to most diners and in the new Disney business model they will not be offering as many "luxuries," they will be changing ingredients and methods of cooking to reflect a "healthier" outlook in some cases and cheaper preparation in others, and they've done a few things like ban foie gras apparently in the interest of a cause.

I have stopped attending any Disney buffet and I won't pay $20 for the cheese board at California Grill either (if you want cheese, try Jiko, Flying Fish, or the bar at Wilderness Lodge)

And that sushi roll that Briar Rosie hated was recommended by me, because I loved it.

 

[Wall-E1]

Just ate there last week for the first time. Thoroughly enjoyed my meal. I ordered whatever the vegetarian option was that night. It was some sort of sweet potato squash type dish. Appetizer and dessert were very good also. I'd eat there again.

 

[sophie832]

We're going signature crazy at the end of Jan, so we'll be trying CG, Citrico's, Narcoosee's, FF, YS, and Jiko. I think of myself as someone who enjoys good food, and knows when something tastes bad, but now that I'm reading this thread, perhaps I'm not the foodie I thought I was. I mean, for me bad is something outright disgusting (not cooked, hair in it, can't chew it). Maybe true foodies really pay attention to detail. Then again, DH and I don't really dine in fancy restaurants (bill more than $80) very often...perhaps once a year.

On our last trip we tried to ignore the reviews we'd read on the DIS when we went to the TS restaurants and judge them on their own. We were on the DDP, and despite the intense backlash against it, we quite enjoyed it. We didn't think about the cost of the food, since it was pre-paid, and just ate whatever we wanted. In the end, we only ate one bad meal, and that was at a CS restaurant.

Maybe the food has gone downhill since the DDP, but we were happy with what we ate. We're still looking forward to trying all the signatures in Jan.