CRT, Pre-Pay, and no DDE!

[bwv4me]

Ah, but almost no one goes to CRT because they want to have breakfast - they go because it's an experience that is available literally almost nowhere else in the entire world (not just the "World"), and which a number of parents and young (or not-so-young) children really want to do. It isn't the food that you're paying for, but the overall experience - of which the food is perhaps the least remembered.

Have to disagree - the demand for those breakfasts, while considerable, doesn't begin to compare to the demand for CRT.

Whatever else it might be, it's certainly not a "rip off", since the price is known ahead of time, and paying it is strictly voluntary. Each potential patron has to decide for themselves if the price is worth the benefit.

While you may be right in most cases, I do not believe you can speak you everyone by saying that. I have been there, and while I do go primarily for the characters, my family "kills two birds with one stone" by eating a meal there as well. So I do go there because I want to have breakfast AND have my children see the characters. To you it might not be a "rip off". To say "it's certainly" not is in the eye of the beholder. If you think it is worth the money than it is not a rip off. If you don't than it is. In any case, I think I'm done with the CRT DDE dialogue. I didn't write the OP to debate a princess breakfasts merits. Just to let those who already didn't know of the new procedure and that they were not accepting DDE anymore. I may still go with my kids, but it is my pergoative to call it a rip off if I want to.

 

[bicker]

To you it might not be a "rip off". To say "it's certainly" not is in the eye of the beholder.

I think there is some confusion with regard to the term "rip off."

rip off Slang

1. To steal from: thieves who ripped off the unsuspecting tourist.
2. To steal: ripped off a leather jacket while ostensibly trying on clothes.
3. To exploit, swindle, cheat, or defraud: a false advertising campaign that ripped off consumers.

Therefore, in order for something to be a rip off, it requires malevolent intent, for which there is surely no indication in the scenario we're discussing.

So what I think folks are trying to say here is that there can be difference of opinion as to whether the experience is "worth it" or not (to them). Surely, each person applies their own perceptions and value when determining whether something provides enough value to be "worth it" (to them) with regard to its price. I doubt anyone disagrees with that. That's very different from establishing whether a seller is "defrauding" consumers -- that's not a matter of opinion about the value, but rather is a matter of the intent of the seller.

 

[cigar95]

If you think it is worth the money than it is not a rip off. If you don't than it is.

If you want to say that for some it's worth paying and for some it isn't - of course that would be correct.

But the term "rip off" implies that money has been stolen from you or otherwise taken under some sort of false pretenses. In this case, each patron knows ahead of time what the cost is and has willingly, if perhaps grudgingly, chosen to pay it.

It's true that it's your perogative (sic) to use the term "rip off", but it just demonstrates an objectively incorrect use of the term, and casts an unjustified negative aspersion on the company.

 

[bwv4me]

Thanks for the definition of rip off, bicker. Please pardon my objectively incorrect use of the term that could cast an unjustified negative aspersion on the company, cigar95.

 

[Diabolicdesire]

We ate at CRT for the first time in November. My dd 8 was so excited. I was not happy that Cinderella was only down in the lobby but my daughter did not mind. There was plenty of other princess upstairs to keep her excited. We saw Mary Poppins, Belle, Snow White, and Aroura. The atmosphere in the castle was magical. The staff was great. The eggs sucked but the fruit, pastries, stuffed french toast, and potatoes were awsome and it was more than enough to fill us up. (My dd actually ate most of my potatoes, Next time I'll have to order her an adult plate, she wasn't real impressed by french toast sticks on the kids plate) Being our first time in the castle, how could I resist not paying 30.00 for the photo package. So yes, a first time patron I would not have minded paying the new prices to have the photo included. (it worked out to about the same amt $, atleast for a party of 3 with only one child) Will I eat in the castle again with the new prices ? Someday yes. Will I make it a priority to eat there every time we go with the new prices? NO. So, I do agree this should make it easier to get an ADR as I think more people will not be including this in every trip to the world

 

[YourMajesty]

Without a doubt, that's almost surely not the objective. Rather, I'd bet the objective is structuring the offering so that people can still get reservations for it the day before. The fastest way to sub-optimize your operations is to tell customers willing to pay you good money to go away.

It may not be the best operations but does tell my to go away. I'm sure some will feel the same...especially non dining plan customers. As for CRT they will always have plently of people to fill it up and plenty of people with a endless wallet!

 

[bwv4me]

If you want to say that for some it's worth paying and for some it isn't - of course that would be correct.

But the term "rip off" implies that money has been stolen from you or otherwise taken under some sort of false pretenses. In this case, each patron knows ahead of time what the cost is and has willingly, if perhaps grudgingly, chosen to pay it.

It's true that it's your perogative (sic) to use the term "rip off", but it just demonstrates an objectively incorrect use of the term, and casts an unjustified negative aspersion on the company.

Wow, cigar95. I reread your post. Correcting someone's use of a definition in a condescending tone and then correcting someone's spelling (on a Disney board, mind you) using (sic) . . . . you must be fun at parties!

 

[cigar95]

Wow, cigar95. I reread your post. Correcting someone's use of a definition in a condescending tone and then correcting someone's spelling (on a Disney board, mind you) using (sic) . . . . you must be fun at parties!

Certainly there was no intention to be condescending - that wasn't the intent, and I apologize if you interpreted it that way. I was just responding to an accusation that was untrue.

The ironic thing about the spelling comment is that I *didn't* correct anything. I used it as it was so that my reference would be as close as possible to your original statement.

I'm certainly not trying to make anyone mad. There's nothing to be gained by doing that.

 

[bwv4me]

Certainly there was no intention to be condescending - that wasn't the intent, and I apologize if you interpreted it that way. I was just responding to an accusation that was untrue.

The ironic thing about the spelling comment is that I *didn't* correct anything. I used it as it was so that my reference would be as close as possible to your original statement.

I'm certainly not trying to make anyone mad. There's nothing to be gained by doing that.

Then I apologize as well. Perhaps I read too much into it.

 

[VSL]

Heck, it'll be years before I have a small child to take to CRT and I'll definitely go if it's still there - not for the food but for the look on my child's face :