How has menu changed sisnce DDP?

[nezy]

I have heard it mentioned that the Menus have changed since DDP.
Does anyone have any experience w/this?
How have the menus changed? Are the all the same across the board?

Is this due to the mass marketing of DDP? Cost Factor?

 

[bicker]

Menus have changed, continually and repeatedly, at most of the WDW restaurants since the restaurants had opened. The Dining Plan has not and will not change the normal, routine changing of menus at restaurants. I expect menus to change at least three or four times a year at the better restaurants, and at the best restaurants, I expect a different menu every few days.

The restaurant menus are different from restaurant to restaurant, typically showcasing a specific type of cuisine.

I think you've read a lot of exaggerated criticisms of the Dining Plan. I wouldn't believe half of what you've read.

 

[hulagirl87]

we found one change last september. we made reservations for lunch at tony's town square and when we were seated we were handed the dinner menu. we had made the reservations specifically for lunch because we liked what we had read on the online menus. we asked why we got the dinner menu and they said they had no more lunch menu and that it was all in one now. we said that there wasn't anything we wanted on the dinner menu and left. we were a little bummed!

 

[seven dwarfs]

I agree that the menus change often. This is ok although sometimes I get really excited about having a certain something only to find it is gone. I will say, and I do think it is because of the DDP, that the kids meals have changed. They have changed a lot. Also, I feel the amounts of food served on the plate is getting smaller and smaller. This may be just because they needed to shave the cost not just becuase of the plan. It is still plenty of food. The prices seem to increase as well. Allmost as if you will have to do the plan as the out of pocket cost are so much. I guess with everything else in this world, there are the good and the bad.

 

[bicker]

This may be just because they needed to shave the cost not just becuase of the plan.

I think it is more complicated than that. I think the plan is just one of many indications that guests desire more affordable sit-down dining choices. People simply want to eat-out more these days than they did many years ago. The Dining Plan helps address that a little, but I think generic changes to the restaurants have also addressed the desire for a less costly dining experience. Ten years ago, the Epcot restaurants were mind-blowingly excellent, and rather empty at times, but also very expensive. Now, they're almost all busy all the time. Some are still great, but many of them are much more affordable than they were before, and as a result costs were cut to reflect the lower price. With most things, price is based on value, and that works both ways: If you raise the value, you should raise the price; but also if you lower the price, you should lower the value (if it reduces your costs).

Another thing that is going on, which is perhaps a secondary effect, is that the clientèle has changed a bit. Previously, guests would see a big portion and perceive that as "overwhelming value". Now, more and more, guests see a big portion and perceive it as "let's share and cut our costs in half". Big portions in restaurants were never ever ever intended to be an invitation to share. They were considered a way to trick the customer into thinking that the meal was more worth-it than it really was. Doubling the size of a portion only increases the cost to provide it by 18%. With the change in the way guests view large portions, it is essential that restaurant reduce portion sizes back to a reasonable size, so they can safeguard their pricing model, which was always based on the expectation that most every guest (over the age of 9, these days) would order a full-priced entree.

 

[seven dwarfs]

Bicker: I agree with you too. I think there are all kinds of factors. But one thing for sure the quality of food and amount of food has changed. Again, everyone can find good and bad about it. Hey Bicker, Do you know, does Disney write off the difference in the cost. Does that question make since. If a meal should be $100.00 and you have paid $38, do they write off the difference?

 

[bicker]

But one thing for sure the quality of food and amount of food has changed.

Something I didn't mention before is that some restaurants were deliberately re-classified, to provide more affordable choices, presumably so that the proportion to affordable versus expensive choices was closer to the proportion of guests seeking each. For example, Coral Reef used to be on-par with the signature restaurants, but was revamped to be on-par with the casual dining table-service restaurants. Again, it seems clear that that was a deliberate decision to make the options available more closely align with guest demand.

Also, the biggest impact of the Dining Plan, itself, was that participating restaurants had to fit into one of two classifications, regular or signature. Just imagine how confusing it would be if there were 1TS restaurants, and 0.8TS restaurants, and 1.23TS restaurants, and 1.725TS restaurants! So the Dining Plan as put pressure on restaurant below and above the middle of each of the two classifications to come closer to the middle -- not in terms of what they serve, but rather in terms of the value they deliver.

Do you know, does Disney write off the difference in the cost. Does that question make since. If a meal should be $100.00 and you have paid $38, do they write off the difference?

They absolutely have no flexibility in that regard. The $38 counts as revenue -- all they can do is claim actual expenses, i.e., the cost of the labor, the cost of maintaining the facilities, the cost of the utilities, the cost of customer acquisition and the cost of the food ingredients. The menu price has absolutely no effect on how restaurants account for Dining Plan patrons.

 

[seven dwarfs]

No wonder the size of the meals has gotten smaller. And the fact they food isn't the same quality. When you factor in the amounts they are charging and what you get...Not much left, I would not think. I know all the expences of our company. It is amazing how much goes out and how little comes in. I just thought maybe they wrote off the difference in what the meal would cost and what you paid. Like if I discouted materials.

 

[Katiebell]

Another thing that is going on, which is perhaps a secondary effect, is that the clientèle has changed a bit. Previously, guests would see a big portion and perceive that as "overwhelming value". Now, more and more, guests see a big portion and perceive it as "let's share and cut our costs in half". Big portions in restaurants were never ever ever intended to be an invitation to share. They were considered a way to trick the customer into thinking that the meal was more worth-it than it really was. Doubling the size of a portion only increases the cost to provide it by 18%. With the change in the way guests view large portions, it is essential that restaurant reduce portion sizes back to a reasonable size, so they can safeguard their pricing model, which was always based on the expectation that most every guest (over the age of 9, these days) would order a full-priced entree.

American restaurants, not just fast food, have been widely criticized for serving portions that are just not a reasonable size for one person. I've mentioned in other threads that Shula's Steakhouse actually serves a 48 oz Porterhouse -- that is 3 lbs of meat, and it's $75. I'm sure they don't expect a single diner to consume that in one sitting -- and they list a $10 plate sharing fee on their menu, but even then each diner would be faced with 1 1/2 lbs of steak on their plate.

DH and I frequent a restaurant that has a great entree salad we love, but it's just too large for one person. Since salad isn't something that you can normally take home and save half for later, we typically share it, and no one at the restaurant has ever cared at all (we often buy a second small entree or appetizer and split that, too). Another restaurant we frequently visit has a Cobb salad I love, but it's $10 for full size and $8 for half size. I usually end up ordering the full size because it's only $2 more, even though I can never finish the whole thing! If the half size was only $5 or even $6, I'd certainly order that, but the "value" of the larger salad is too hard to pass up -- even though it's only a perceived value, since some of it is always wasted

 

[DVC Sadie]

I have found that the quality of food and food selection has gone downhill due to the DDP which is why we have found different dining options for our family. Portion size is not a concern for us but the quality of food is of utmost importance.

 

[mmcguire]

In our family's opinion, the food and service quality has declined noticeably, and the variety of dishes has become smaller since the advent of DDP. The dishes that remain on the pared-down menus tend to be the more tame "vanilla" ones, and many of the menus are quite similar.

I was just perusing my "Cooking with Mickey" cookbook last night, feeling a little wistful at all the exciting and exotic dishes no longer offered at WDW. Dining at WDW used to be a real event in and of itself, but most restaurants are now mere shadows of their former selves.