Is Free Dining dumbing down the menus?

[KevinYee]

I'm not sure I agree that the DDP is a symptom of the problem. It might be part of the cause also.

The larger "problem statement" is that Disney wants to fill its hotels and fill its TS restaurants. The solution is things like the DDP (and there are other ancillary programs, like Magical Express, too).

The DDP has the intended effect: all the restaurants are full all the time. Disney wins! But because Disney is a public company and wants to make its quarter-after-quarter results look ever better, it must always squeeze out that "next" dollar and cannot content itself with the "same" dollar.

Thus, the evolution of the DDP is to squeeze more profit out of it. Inevitably, that will mean standardization of the menus, minimizing choice. Yes, it's true, menus always change. But the change used to be dynamic: bigger menus one year and smaller the next, then bigger again. The trend post-DDP has been unidirectional: toward smaller, and saving company money.

The DDP is changing things, and that's no ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just look at Universal Orlando's meal deal. The participating restaurants there are 100% empty except for folks on the meal deal, the food is *even more* uninspired than other Universal eateries, and there is zero incentive to provide fresh food or good service. Like it or not, some variation of that is in the future for the DDP.

After all, once you have their money via the prepaid DDP, what motivation remains to make the food great?

 

[Katiebell]

While reading this thread, I'm really getting the feeling that alot of people are feeling like if you can't afford a DVC and $100/ per person/ per meal, then you shouldn't be allowed to dine at Disney. I hope I am wrong, but that seems to be the overall jist of this thread. "If you are loaded enough to enjoy it all stay at home" I didn't realize Disney was just for the rich. Do you object to value resorts as well? It's really frustrating to me. I am going to be in WDW in 25 days on my honeymoon, DDP in hand and proud of it. And it's not about saving money to me, it's about the convenience of it all being paid for before we get there. So maybe these very judgemental people on this thread should think about other aspects of the plan instead of "lower class people going in to restaurants ordering the most expensive thing on the menu because it's expensive!"

You aren't the only one who feels this way, Gus.

I'm sure that no one has ever said that. I do agree that some folks are a little "over the top" with their criticisms of what Disney has done to make dining more affordable in recent years, but I think you need to give them a break and at least allow for the fact that they simply are expressing their frustration with becoming part of a small unserviced sector of Disney's customer-base.

Probably no one has ever said those exact words, because saying exactly that would make someone look astonishingly arrogant. But that's the sentiment and the overall feel of some of the posts on this subject. Not just on this thread -- and several people have mentioned that they got this impression, it's not imagined. I understand expressing frustration, but in many cases it seems to be directed at the "unwashed masses", instead of at Disney.

I'm not sure I agree that the DDP is a symptom of the problem. It might be part of the cause also.

The larger "problem statement" is that Disney wants to fill its hotels and fill its TS restaurants. The solution is things like the DDP (and there are other ancillary programs, like Magical Express, too).

The DDP has the intended effect: all the restaurants are full all the time. Disney wins! But because Disney is a public company and wants to make its quarter-after-quarter results look ever better, it must always squeeze out that "next" dollar and cannot content itself with the "same" dollar.

Thus, the evolution of the DDP is to squeeze more profit out of it. Inevitably, that will mean standardization of the menus, minimizing choice. Yes, it's true, menus always change. But the change used to be dynamic: bigger menus one year and smaller the next, then bigger again. The trend post-DDP has been unidirectional: toward smaller, and saving company money.

The DDP is changing things, and that's no ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just look at Universal Orlando's meal deal. The participating restaurants there are 100% empty except for folks on the meal deal, the food is *even more* uninspired than other Universal eateries, and there is zero incentive to provide fresh food or good service. Like it or not, some variation of that is in the future for the DDP.

After all, once you have their money via the prepaid DDP, what motivation remains to make the food great?

I agree with many of your points -- but it even more clearly shows that the DDP is not the cause of the changes in the Disney restaurants. It's not that Disney came up with the dining plan out of the blue, and then suddenly all the restaurants went downhill. It's that Disney said: this is a huge opportunity for profit -- all these restaurants with great reputations, but they are half empty and the majority of our guests feel that this is not part of their vacation experience, that they can't afford this for their family. So Disney has come up with many ideas to maximize that profit: the ME, the DDP, standardizing the menus, substituting cheaper ingredients, outsourcing or hiring casual employees without the same level of training...it's all part of that big picture.

 

[tfc3rid]

Here's the thing... Everytime I go to WDW I dine OOP... I am a DVC member and I do not mind paying for my meals... I have noticed that in the past few years of visits to WDW that when I make my ADR's and tell them I am not on the plan, I've been able to get tables rather easily and have never been rushed and always have left a terrific tip... I can see that the CM's have been terrific since they know they are basically 'working' for their tips for me...

I know that many people so like the DDP... There are some very attractive elements to it for the consumer...

Has it impacted foodservice at WDW... To some degree, yes... But I would also say that the changes have also occurred due to change in managmeent in WDW foodservice as well...

 

[wdwthanksgiving]

yes, the food choices are not as interesting, the presentation not as attractive and the taste less enjoyable....what a shame
there is no such thing as a free lunch - food quality and originality has suffered and that is the price tag for "free" dining

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

yes, the food choices are not as interesting, the presentation not as attractive and the taste less enjoyable....what a shame
there is no such thing as a free lunch - food quality and originality has suffered and that is the price tag for "free" dining

IMO this is WDW reverse discrimination for those of us who do want higher end dining & willing and wanting to pay.....for years WDW survived on a % of people that did pay for great chefs and terrific food service management now it has almost disappeared.

I truly hear that Disney is for all but what is going to happen when the once a year % or biyearly % go away? Does WDW think the other percentage is once again going to maintain their finances? By then some will be put off enough that the magic will start to be wearing off and would have moved on...

 

[d-r]

AFAIC, that's always been the case. I can dig up message from 1986 and 1987 complaining about how expensive the food is at WDW, and that was before they made everything super-deluxe in the 1990s. .

did somebody pass you those messages on notebook paper?

you are on to something, in the 90's disney went after dinks - a lot of that has been abandoned (e.g. disney institute)

in my opinion there is no doubt the food quality in general has gone downhill

 

[gokenin]

This thread appears every time disney announces a dining plan. The thread will eventually fall into the usual pattern. one side yes the DDP is the next thing to the end of Disney because it makes sizes smaller,limits food options,standardizes things, destroys Disney as a resort for the "foodies" that demand five star meals everywhere, and go to Disney multile times a year. The other camp is of the opinion that is not a bad thing that Disney is offering lower priced options so that more people can come to the park and enjoy it even if that meansgettig rid of the higher end meal options.
I know this is long winded but do we really need to keep hashing the issue te Dining Plan is here to stay either we accept it or stop going to disney dining and head out of the park if you cant stomach what has happened to disney dining. hold on while I get in my asbetos suit before i get flamed but its my two cents and I am one of thoses yearly only visitors

 

[bicker]

After all, once you have their money via the prepaid DDP, what motivation remains to make the food great?

Yet many guests rave about not only the affordability but also the food itself. It's just a matter of personal preference.

 

[bicker]

I understand expressing frustration, but in many cases it seems to be directed at the "unwashed masses", instead of at Disney.

Which would be equally misdirected. Frustration does not need to be "directed". Dining is the way it is. It's not a matter of fault or blame.

 

[bicker]

I have noticed that in the past few years of visits to WDW that when I make my ADR's and tell them I am not on the plan, I've been able to get tables rather easily and have never been rushed and always have left a terrific tip... I can see that the CM's have been terrific since they know they are basically 'working' for their tips for me...

Over that same time period, I've done it both ways: with the Dining Plan and without; There was no difference with regard to the issues you're talking about --getting tables, getting quality service, etc.

 

[bicker]

By then some will be put off enough that the magic will start to be wearing off and would have moved on...

Disney is very good about knowing their customers and adjusting to what their customers want. They've been doing it for decades. This is nothing new.

 

[bicker]

AFAIC, that's always been the case. I can dig up message from 1986 and 1987 complaining about how expensive the food is at WDW, and that was before they made everything super-deluxe in the 1990s. .

did somebody pass you those messages on notebook paper?

Nope. Online discussion forums.

Why? You didn't realize that the Internet goes back that far?

 

[gina2000]

I keep asking about the percentage of patrons who are on the DDP for a specific reason. If a restaurant's patrons on the DDP are 50%, that means that the other 50% are paying a much higher price for "affordable food". At the DDP price, the food is fairly priced (even considering rack rate hotel prices). At OOP prices, it is not even close with the declining quality/innovation/portion sizes. So in essense, OOP patrons (depending on the percentage frequenting TS restaurants) are a larger profit margin than a DDP patron. I'm just curious as to how the bottom line looks if patronage is broken out that way.

 

[bicker]

If a restaurant's patrons on the DDP are 50%, that means that the other 50% are paying a much higher price for "affordable food".

We found the difference to be only about $6 per adult per night as compared to what we would have spent on dining if we weren't on the Dining Plan. Not really that big of a difference really, at all.

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

I'm sure that no one has ever said that. I do agree that some folks are a little "over the top" with their criticisms of what Disney has done to make dining more affordable in recent years, but I think you need to give them a break and at least allow for the fact that they simply are expressing their frustration with becoming part of a small unserviced sector of Disney's customer-base.

The reality is that WDW is expensive -- it always has been -- and ignoring that does nothing to enhance anyone's WDW vacation experience. Back in the day, we weren't able to afford nice meals at WDW either, but always had a great time anyway, just eating counter-service or perhaps having a few meals off-site. Also, as I indicated, WDW has been deliberately working in recent years to make dining more affordable for the Average Joe than they have in the past. Therefore, all this talk about WDW being just for the rich is a red herring.

I agree with most of what you have stated with the exception of WDW being expensive. The introduction of all the "value" properties unfortunately made some of us aware this would be coming as far as dining, we just didn't expect it to be so drastic and one-sided.
It is ashame but business is business and no matter how much a small % complains (including our family and many friends) it is just going to get worse and more disappointing.

 

[d-r]

Nope. Online discussion forums.

Why? You didn't realize that the Internet goes back that far?

I can remember bitnet in the late 80s through university servers. You could send e-mails to people at other universities though bitnet, and there were listserves and news. The most online computer I remember from 86 were like vaxes (sic?) with those "dumb" terminals, kind of like the old ibm main frames. We had basically an intranet at college through those. And pcs that didn't have hard drives, you had to boot from floppies. I remember bbs's back then. A little bit after the time of apple 2e. No, actually I didn't realize that the "internet" goes back that far.


Oh one other one -

Disney is very good about knowing their customers and adjusting to what their customers want. They've been doing it for decades. This is nothing new.

They have and they are very good at it, but they don't always get it right. That's why they have been adjusting for decades.

 

[La2kw]

While reading this thread, I'm really getting the feeling that alot of people are feeling like if you can't afford a DVC and $100/ per person/ per meal, then you shouldn't be allowed to dine at Disney. I hope I am wrong, but that seems to be the overall jist of this thread. "If you are loaded enough to enjoy it all stay at home" I didn't realize Disney was just for the rich. Do you object to value resorts as well? It's really frustrating to me. I am going to be in WDW in 25 days on my honeymoon, DDP in hand and proud of it. And it's not about saving money to me, it's about the convenience of it all being paid for before we get there. So maybe these very judgemental people on this thread should think about other aspects of the plan instead of "lower class people going in to restaurants ordering the most expensive thing on the menu because it's expensive!"

I don't think that's it at all. I am far from rich- my wife and I are both teachers. We have been going to WDW for years and in those previous trips, we chose two or three ts restaurants to dine at, and pretty much ate cs and in our room the rest of the time. We stayed many nights at All Star Sports, then music and then movies when those were built. We now own DVC because we know we will continue vacationing there for many years, and it's actually quite cost effective in the long run. We planned and saved for those ts meals in the old days because it was a unique experience and very enjoyable. The beef many of us have, (who remember what dining at those restaurants was like before the DDP) is that what used to be an enjoyable experience, no longer is. Restaurants are packed, food quality has declined, and menus have been standardized. Sure, the restaurants are busy now, but it's come at a cost. The restaurants are less special and that has nothing to do with a person's income. They are less special because Disney can (and used to) do so much better.

 

[J and R's mom]

From May 2006 to November 2006 (six months) I noticed a difference (and I had to pay for DDP both times, it wasn't during the free dining stint). I was excited about trying the DDP for the first time in May 2006 (see the link in my signature). I enjoyed a cheese plate appetizer at both Rose-N-Crown and LeCellier. I never would have tried them prior to the dining plan (they're typically one of the most expensive appetizers) but decided what the heck.

I was looking forward to trying them again in November 2006 when we took to in-laws. Not such luck. Those weren't offered on the menus anymore. I was rather disappointed.

 

[gina2000]

We found the difference to be only about $6 per adult per night as compared to what we would have spent on dining if we weren't on the Dining Plan. Not really that big of a difference really, at all.

Perhaps for you but not for us. We eat a quick pastry for breakfast and a 2 or 3 course meal for dinner. Our cost for a three course meal per person (plus coffee) was substantially higher than the entire DDP cost per person for one day. The point is that if you order the same meal OOP verses the DDP, the cost can be as much as double. So how many people are carrying that cost verses the DDP patrons?

 

[JMLBrats]

I don't think that's it at all. I am far from rich- my wife and I are both teachers. We have been going to WDW for years and in those previous trips, we chose two or three ts restaurants to dine at, and pretty much ate cs and in our room the rest of the time. We stayed many nights at All Star Sports, then music and then movies when those were built. We now own DVC because we know we will continue vacationing there for many years, and it's actually quite cost effective in the long run. We planned and saved for those ts meals in the old days because it was a unique experience and very enjoyable. The beef many of us have, (who remember what dining at those restaurants was like before the DDP) is that what used to be an enjoyable experience, no longer is. Restaurants are packed, food quality has declined, and menus have been standardized. Sure, the restaurants are busy now, but it's come at a cost. The restaurants are less special and that has nothing to do with a person's income. They are less special because Disney can (and used to) do so much better.

Well said, that's pretty much the way I look at too.