Is Free Dining dumbing down the menus?

[TDC Nala]

Maybe it is time for us foodie types to stop using DDE and cut down on patronizing Disney restaurants.

But there's that pesky discount on the booze.

 

[Katiebell]

... if anyone is...Well, you know me: It is the realistic take on it. Just keeping it real, dawg. I don't see much benefit in blame to start with, in cases where no one has done anything wrong, and even less benefit in misdirecting blame.

So...basically...no corporation or company is ever responsible for any business decision they make or any product they manufacture, because everything they do is in response to what the public wants and what the public demands. Their business decisions are all based on making the company more profitable for their shareholders, as mandated by law, and have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are an enormous corporation and want to make tons of money, period.

I'm not blaming Disney -- and I seriously doubt that the state of Disney dining is in the state of emergency that some people think it is. If it was truly that horrible, people would just stop patronizing the restaurants. Even if the dining plan was free all the time, no one would eat on site if they had a choice between hospital food at one place, school cafeteria food at another, and the Circus Circus buffet at a third Now that's horrible food. But as a company, Disney is responsible for the business decisions they make. I don't see that they are helpless, just being swept along by the tide of what the masses demand. I see the public more as...lab mice, and they experiment on us to see what works and what makes the most profit:

Offer the dining plan for free -- oh look, now the hotels fill up during hurricane season. That was successful. OK, now offer it, but for a shorter time period -- hey it still worked! The hotels still filled up during the off season! OK, now...offer it only to people who happened to be at the park in December of the previous year, and guests from the UK -- LOOK! All these other people booked during hurricane season on the hope that free dining would be offered!

Disney makes the offer: free dining. The public responds. Disney evaluates whether or not it was profitable enough to offer again. So, Disney bases their decisions on what the public rewards them for doing -- but Disney makes those decisions in the first place. They do have a corporate responsibility.

Maybe it is time for us foodie types to stop using DDE and cut down on patronizing Disney restaurants.

But there's that pesky discount on the booze.

Yep, and Disney has figured out that they can make a lot more money from 500 customers willing to pay $35 for a meal than 100 customers willing to pay $75 for a meal. There's always V&A, bluezoo, Shula's, and the other places that don't take the plan. And, maybe it's a small consolation that those on the plan are paying full price for their liquor

 

[KevinYee]

But there's that pesky discount on the booze.

LOL - my sentiments EXACTLY. sixty dollars a year is easy to reach on that basis alone

 

[johnsonet]

There's always V&A, bluezoo, Shula's, and the other places that don't take the plan.

Geez... Maybe I DO need to find somewhere else to spend my husband's hard-earned vacation dollars

 

[dizfanz]

Wow, this topic again. You know, I fall on the side of the arguement that I want to blame DDP for everything, but I am not sure how responsible it is or how bad it has affected the situation. I am a restaurant insider also. Food cost is a major issue, particularly for large corporations, which WDW is. I am sure DDP did put some pressure on Chef's to control cost more effeciently. But how about political/environmental issues. The price of oil goes up. Gas is $3.00/gallon. Margins are cut unless prices are raised, which doesn't happen everytime the price at the pump changes. That is not just gas for delivery truck, but for fishing ships, farmers' tractors, etc.... How about when spinach crops in California were tainted last year. Tomato crops have been damaged frequently. The freeze California had this winter was historic in the damage to their citrus farms. These all affect prices and made product less affordable, leading to other choices. Another topic, I hate the standardized bar menus you see these days. Same martinis and specialty drinks everywhere except for maybe 2 choices. But honestly, isn't that what every major restaurant corporation does already? We were just lucky that it took WDW all this time to figure it out. And when people stop going to the bars and buying the generic drinks and they are scratching their heads as to why this happened, maybe someone will suggest going back to better quality items. But you need to voice your opinion if they are going to figure it out. I despise it. What do ya do? I go to different restaurants. I spend more time at Swan and Dolphin and DD eating than I used too. I don't eat at Spoodles anymore. Most of my meals are at Signature restaurants versus the single dining credit places. More expensive, yes. Better quality, yes. That's my choice. What everyone needs to remember though is that WDW is not only responsible to the people that vacation there, they are also responsible to the stockholders as well. More chicken and pasta means better food cost. Same drinks everywhere means better liquor cost. Better margins can keep prices low, which means more people can afford it. Guest count is up, which eventually means higher stock prices. BTW 3 yrs ago DIS stock was under $22/ share, today, roughly $35. More happy guests. More happy stockholders. If you want better food, speak up. But you have to be pretty loud to overcome the majority.

 

[Katiebell]

Geez... Maybe I DO need to find somewhere else to spend my husband's hard-earned vacation dollars

I must not have a sophisticated palate, because I just can't enjoy eating a steak that costs me $75, no matter how fabulous it is...it actually gives me a stomach ache to think about it. I'd rather enjoy a nice $25 steak, or a good $15 burger and a shake, and spend those other hard-earned vacation dollars elsewhere.

But obviously, not everyone feels the same way. For folks that really miss the upscale ingredients and gourmet menu offerings, and are willing to pay premium prices to experience those there are still places out there for them to eat that are yet untouched by the Dreaded Dining Plan

 

[bicker]

So...basically...no corporation or company is ever responsible for any business decision they make or any product they manufacture, because everything they do is in response to what the public wants and what the public demands.

Remember, my point is that there needs not be any blame for what offerings are available in the marketplace. Blame is not applicable. However, for folks who insist on there being blame, yes, that blame rests with the root cause -- the root cause is that consumers drive the marketplace to offer what the marketplace offers.

Their business decisions are all based on making the company more profitable for their shareholders, as mandated by law, and have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are an enormous corporation and want to make tons of money, period.

Hey, stop whistling. That's our society. "Like it or leave it." If people really wanted to honestly object, they should confront capitalism itself, not take misdirected pot-shots at individual companies, whether they be Disney, Verizon, Comcast, General Electric, or American Airlines.

I'm not blaming Disney -- and I seriously doubt that the state of Disney dining is in the state of emergency that some people think it is. If it was truly that horrible, people would just stop patronizing the restaurants.

Absolutely. I'm sure that some people are making a mountain out of a molehill, but that underscores even-more-strongly how blame is misdirected.

But as a company, Disney is responsible for the business decisions they make.

Responsible to their owners for whether or not those decisions are (1) in keeping with their explicit promises, and (2) in keeping with the owners' best long-term financial interest. That's all they're "responsible" for.

I don't see that they are helpless, just being swept along by the tide of what the masses demand.

Not helpless, no -- just blameless.

I see the public more as...lab mice, and they experiment on us to see what works and what makes the most profit ... So, Disney bases their decisions on what the public rewards them for doing -- but Disney makes those decisions in the first place.

Just like the mouse "decided" to go left or right. In the end, both Disney and the mouse are just navigating a maze looking for the cheese. The general public, as a whole, is more like the lab-coated scientist, in the macro-view. Just like the lab-coated scientist, the public makes up the maze, and can change the structure of maze, and as we've read about on these forums quite often, can often even cheat with impunity, while companies have to stay within the walls of the maze which the general public has constructed.

They do have a corporate responsibility.

Yes they do. I believe you're wrong about what that responsibility is. It surely has nothing to do with what people objecting to Disney dining in any of these threads are talking about.

 

[johnsonet]

I must not have a sophisticated palate, because I just can't enjoy eating a steak that costs me $75, no matter how fabulous it is...it actually gives me a stomach ache to think about it.

I never said anything about a $75 steak... all I'm saying is I miss the variety that used to be there in a lot of the WDW restaurants and the special quality details around many of the park and resort eateries ~

For folks that really miss the upscale ingredients and gourmet menu offerings, and are willing to pay premium prices to experience those there are still places out there for them to eat that are yet untouched by the Dreaded Dining Plan

I'm glad you find yourself so amusing. All I want is some options. As to the OP's question, YES - The DDP is definitely "dumbing down the menus"

 

[Katiebell]

Remember, my point is that there needs not be any blame for what offerings are available in the marketplace. Blame is not applicable. However, for folks who insist on there being blame, yes, that blame rests with the root cause -- the root cause is that consumers drive the marketplace to offer what the marketplace offers.

Then people unhappy with the decline in fine dining at Disney will continue to blame all the people who buy the plan. Families on a budget wouldn't buy the plan if Disney didn't offer it. Disney marketing/dining created the plan in the first place, it looked like it would be profitable for the company, and Disney offered it. And Disney continues to offer it. So why blame fellow Disney fans who purchase it if they feel like it's a good deal for their family? It's like saying that the accommodations at Disney are going downhill, and then being upset at people for staying at the value resorts -- which Disney built and Disney priced. If you are willing to pay for the Grand Floridian concierge level, and it's worth it to you, then stay there. Don't complain about how dreadful the All-Stars are.

Hey, stop whistling. That's our society. "Like it or leave it." If people really wanted to honestly object, they should confront capitalism itself, not take misdirected pot-shots at individual companies, whether they be Disney, Verizon, Comcast, General Electric, or American Airlines.

Hey, you don't even know what I was whistling -- could have been "When You Wish Upon A Star", "Look For The Union Label", or "To Dream The Impossible Dream". We all have to live in corporate America, unless we want to be like Thoreau, refuse to pay taxes as a war protest, and go live in the forest As much as I admire his ideals, I appreciate my creature comforts, too. But I recycle religiously, buy fair trade coffee, and work for a "green" company. No pot shots at Disney specifically, but they are a big cog in the capitalism machine, just like all those other companies you mentioned.

Absolutely. I'm sure that some people are making a mountain out of a molehill, but that underscores even-more-strongly how blame is misdirected.

Wow, I think we agree on something.

Responsible to their owners for whether or not those decisions are (1) in keeping with their explicit promises, and (2) in keeping with the owners' best long-term financial interest. That's all they're "responsible" for.

Ah, agreement didn't last long Every company and every individual is responsible for the choices and decisions they make. They have reasons for why they make the choices and decisions, but that does not absolve them of the responsibility for those choices and decisions.

Not helpless, no -- just blameless.

I agree on "blameless" --they did what they surmised would be the most profitable for the company, and the greatest benefit for their shareholders. I do not agree on "not responsible".

Just like the mouse "decided" to go left or right. In the end, both Disney and the mouse are just navigating a maze looking for the cheese. The general public, as a whole, is more like the lab-coated scientist, in the macro-view. Just like the lab-coated scientist, the public makes up the maze, and can change the structure of maze, and as we've read about on these forums quite often, can often even cheat with impunity, while companies have to stay within the walls of the maze which the general public has constructed.

Ah, now that we've drifted into creative illustrations and analogies, our major life philosophy differences become apparent. I am most definitely a mouse, I did not create the maze. I'm looking for the cheese, and if I find it, I will certainly try to help my fellow mice find it too. I won't cheat to find it, but if I find a legitimate shortcut, I will absolutely take it -- because I am a rather clever mouse. Sometimes I just leave the maze altogether and go find my own darn cheese. Or chocolate, 'cause it's better.

 

[Katiebell]

I never said anything about a $75 steak... all I'm saying is I miss the variety that used to be there in a lot of the WDW restaurants and the special quality details around many of the park and resort eateries ~

No, you didn't mention $75 steaks. I was just referring to the offerings at the restaurants that do not accept the Dining Plan. Shula's serves a $75 steak, and Surf and Turf for $73.95. Might be really good, but I just couldn't pay that much for a steak dinner. Of course that $75 steak is a 48 oz porterhouse, which kind of seems to be overkill anyway And they do have many more menu items that are more reasonably priced, in the $25-$40 range. If I was going to pay a fortune for a meal at Disney, I'd probably spring for V&A because everyone raves about it and it's supposed to be wonderful...but I know that afterwards I would still question if it was wise to spend so much on a meal. One of the most delicious recent restaurant meals I've enjoyed was a counter service breakfast in Haight Ashbury. And there were literally people lined up on the sidewalk outside, waiting for a seat. With tip, it was less than $12.

I love good food...but...it's food. It isn't like art, or something that lasts. Obviously, not everyone feels this way. Some people are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a bottle of wine that they never intend to drink, just to possess it. I used to work in a bakery and make wedding cakes that cost hundreds of dollars, and I honestly didn't get it. Yes, we used high quality ingredients, and the cakes were beautiful, but in the end, they were cut up and consumed, very temporary. So pretty though, and at least people got to take pictures of them to remember what they looked like...

I'm glad you find yourself so amusing. All I want is some options. As to the OP's question, YES - The DDP is definitely "dumbing down the menus"

I'm sorry you don't find this amusing -- and it's not me, it's the Great Dining Plan Controversy that I find so funny Again, I do not believe the Dining Plan is the cause of the changes -- it is just one of the many changes Disney has implemented to make Disney Dining more profitable. I'm not doubting at all that the menus used to be better, the ingredients used to be higher quality, the presentation more elegant, etc. But changing all those things are ways that Disney has chosen to cut costs. And I am sorry if some of the old favorites aren't what they once were because of those changes; it's sad, I would like to have seen them in their glory days. But there are choices for foodies -- Puck's Upstairs, Bistro, Shula's, etc -- there are restaurants that do not participate in the plan, and do not seem to have been affected by the other cost-cutting measures, either.

 

[bicker]

Then people unhappy with the decline in fine dining at Disney will continue to blame all the people who buy the plan.

Indeed, and such blame remains misdirected.

No pot shots at Disney specifically, but they are a big cog in the capitalism machine, just like all those other companies you mentioned.

However, still just a cog; the machine is still what we all use to foster our hopes for a college education for our children, a comfortable retirement, etc.

Every company and every individual is responsible for the choices and decisions they make.

Yes, I said they were responsible: Responsible to their owners for whether or not those decisions are (1) in keeping with their explicit promises, and (2) in keeping with the owners' best long-term financial interest. That's all they're "responsible" for.

They have reasons for why they make the choices and decisions, but that does not absolve them of the responsibility for those choices and decisions.

What is your point. I said they were responsible... see above.

Ah, now that we've drifted into creative illustrations and analogies, our major life philosophy differences become apparent. I am most definitely a mouse, I did not create the maze.

Now who's avoiding responsibility? You are a cog in the machine that is the general public, maybe not as big of a part of the machine as Disney is, but still a cog, and still responsible for your part as a member of the general public. That's the nature of the general public -- it's a lot of people, so each person has a small contribution to the whole. However, the general public carries a large amount of responsibility for how things are.

 

[Katiebell]

Well, bicker...as we are on page 9 of this topic, it may or may not be all talked out. However, it is a topic of interest to many, so who knows...it may keep going, or it may ride off into the sunset. Or just be re-incarnated on another thread

I waited overnight on this one, and came back to it today to try to see if I could figure out where our fundamental difference of opinion is. I believe it is a difference in how we see "corporate responsibility".

There is a great Wikipedia article on this topic, and it defines "Corporate Social Responsiblity" as: "a concept that organizations, especially (but not only) corporations, have an obligation to consider the interests of customers, employees, shareholders, communities, and ecological considerations in all aspects of their operations. This obligation is seen to extend beyond their statutory obligation to comply with legislation."

You said:

Yes, I said they were responsible: Responsible to their owners for whether or not those decisions are (1) in keeping with their explicit promises, and (2) in keeping with the owners' best long-term financial interest. That's all they're "responsible" for.

OK, responsibility to the owners -- the shareholders -- for their best long-term financial interest. That's certainly part of it. But companies have other obligations and responsibilities, too -- to their customers, their employees, their communities, and the environment. Above and beyond what they are required to do by law.

It is not all about the Almighty Dollar -- God Money, in the words of the great Trent Reznor. There are decisions a company makes that aren't all about how big their profit margin will be this quarter. A company has to take responsibility for the decisions they make: to institute a company-wide recycling program, or to keep dumping tons of garbage in a landfill. To serve food in non-biodegradable styrofoam containers, or to switch to more environmentally friendly paper containers (even if they are a little more expensive). Whether or not to contribute to charities (like Paul Newmans' food company) or to institute a philanthropist organization (like Ronald McDonald House). And yes, I suppose you can look at that from a purely dollars and cents standpoint -- what great tax deductions! -- but there is much a greater value in contributing to the community and building your company's integrity and reputation in the eyes of your customers.

In the same way, a company has to stand by the business decisions they make. They have to accept responsibility, whether that decision was good or bad. They look at the market, they look at what they believe the customers may or may not want (based on those standardized surveys and market research on buying behavior, etc) -- and then the company makes the decision to offer a new product, change an old product, discontinue a line, open a new branch, whatever. The decision may or may not be the right thing to do, and the choice is not always black-and-white. But the responsibility for the decision is squarely in the lap of the company. The guests at Disney did not come up with the Dining Plan, and then Disney said, "oh ok, we'll try that". Disney came up with the Dining Plan based on what they thought their customers want -- ultimately, so Disney would fill up those restaurants and make more money for the shareholders. But it was Disney's idea from square one, and Disney offered it, and continues to offer it.

I understand what you are saying about that a company will only change what they offer based on the buying behaviors of the consumers, and I agree there is some truth in that -- but I believe that is too simplistic, there are many other factors involved. The company has "idea" people who come up with the offers in the first place, so the consumers can even make a choice as to whether or not they will buy the product or service. The company also has to look at not only whether or not the product or service is profitable, but also if it is upholding their responsibility to their customers, their community, and the environment. To bring this closer to the topic of the thread -- if the quality of the restaurants at Disney continue to decline, then whether or not their business decisions to cut costs in Disney Dining (including the DDP, but also the menu standardization, cheaper ingredients, etc) are profitable, Disney will be harming their own reputation for fine dining, and will not be upholding their responsibility to their loyal customers who buy AP's and come back season after season.

Ah, this has drifted too far into left-field philosophy. Sorry, I can't think of any better way to explain it, although I know you won't agree with much of what I've said

 

[La2kw]

Very well said.
I especially agree with this part:

To bring this closer to the topic of the thread -- if the quality of the restaurants at Disney continue to decline, then whether or not their business decisions to cut costs in Disney Dining (including the DDP, but also the menu standardization, cheaper ingredients, etc) are profitable, Disney will be harming their own reputation for fine dining, and will not be upholding their responsibility to their loyal customers who buy AP's and come back season after season.

I think in the long run, what they have done to the overall dining experience at WDW is going to cost Disney eventually in credibility, reputation, and goodwill. More and more folks will get tired of the overcrowded restaurants, standardized menus, and cheap ingredients that make up so much of what Disney is serving these days. We plan on cooking more in our DVC kitchen and eating off site this summer much more than ever before since we are fed up with the whole experience anymore.

 

[NEM]

OK, responsibility to the owners -- the shareholders -- for their best long-term financial interest. That's certainly part of it. But companies have other obligations and responsibilities, too -- to their customers, their employees, their communities, and the environment. Above and beyond what they are required to do by law.

To bring this closer to the topic of the thread -- if the quality of the restaurants at Disney continue to decline, then whether or not their business decisions to cut costs in Disney Dining (including the DDP, but also the menu standardization, cheaper ingredients, etc) are profitable, Disney will be harming their own reputation for fine dining, and will not be upholding their responsibility to their loyal customers who buy AP's and come back season after season.

Ah, this has drifted too far into left-field philosophy. Sorry, I can't think of any better way to explain it, although I know you won't agree with much of what I've said

Well said Katiebell!!!!

I completely agree with you and your overall philosophical view of the situation. I do not see things as cut and dried as bicker either....Blame....responsibility....2 sides same coin or octagon ( and containing many shades of gray) ...as I am sure there are many more sides....blame may have a more negative connotation....but responsibility to loyal patrons is equally important.

 

[bicker]

But companies have other obligations and responsibilities, too -- to their customers, their employees, their communities, and the environment.

Social responsibility is only an assertion (one I personally buy-into, but there is no requirement for everyone to do so -- it is not part of our society's mores), and at best it is a fervent hope.

Furthermore, the social responsibility companies have towards their customers does not include any of the things that would be applicable in this thread. It includes things like being conscientious about their handling of potentially dangerous materials (like toxic waste) and information (like customer's credit card numbers). It does not include anything having to do with the specific grade of cuisine they offer at their restaurants. Nothing at all. Not even a little. Read on up corporate social responsibility a bit and you'll see how incredibly petty the dining-related criticism are in the context of things that corporate social responsibility actually involves.

In the same way, a company has to stand by the business decisions they make.

No they don't. Not in the same way. Not at all. Corporate social responsibility is special. What applies to it does not apply to the things we're talking about in this thread. Again, not even a little.

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

I have always liked the idea that WDW have seperate menus at the restaurants for guests on the DDP and for guests not on the DDP. I know it will never happen, but why should guests who are not on the DDP pay for food which is not up to WDW standards?

 

[Katiebell]

Social responsibility is only an assertion (one I personally buy-into, but there is no requirement for everyone to do so -- it is not part of our society's mores), and at best it is a fervent hope.

Furthermore, the social responsibility companies have towards their customers does not include any of the things that would be applicable in this thread. It includes things like being conscientious about their handling of potentially dangerous materials (like toxic waste) and information (like customer's credit card numbers). It does not include anything having to do with the specific grade of cuisine they offer at their restaurants. Nothing at all. Not even a little. Read on up corporate social responsibility a bit and you'll see how incredibly petty the dining-related criticism are in the context of things that corporate social responsibility actually involves.

No they don't. Not in the same way. Not at all. Corporate social responsibility is special. What applies to it does not apply to the things we're talking about in this thread. Again, not even a little.

Ah, bicker, you never disappoint -- I knew you wouldn't agree with anything I wrote

What I wrote fits very well with the definition of corporate responsibility: "a concept that organizations, especially (but not only) corporations, have an obligation to consider the interests of customers, employees, shareholders, communities, and ecological considerations in all aspects of their operations. This obligation is seen to extend beyond their statutory obligation to comply with legislation." It goes way beyond serving the interests of God Money, toxic waste dumping, or preventing credit card fraud.

I will agree with you wholeheartedly about one thing, though: much of the dining related criticism is -- for lack of a better word, although I try not to be so harsh -- rather petty.

On a brighter note, have you been reading the reports that the children's menus have been changing? At several of the CS restaurants, they are now offering pudding, cookies, even yogurt as options for the kids, and it sounds like they may have even gotten rid of the dreaded Pecos Bill's sloppy joes So, even though it doesn't appear that Disney guests have dramatically changed their buying habits, Disney may be listening to guests' concerns, anyway.

Or maybe...Disney executives read boards like this a lot more than we realize

 

[bicker]

I have always liked the idea that WDW have seperate menus at the restaurants for guests on the DDP and for guests not on the DDP. I know it will never happen, but why should guests who are not on the DDP pay for food which is not up to WDW standards?

Why should Dining Plan patrons, sold the program with the promise that they'll be treated the same as all other diners, pay for food which is not as good as that provided to all other diners?

 

[bicker]

Ah, bicker, you never disappoint -- I knew you wouldn't agree with anything I wrote

You write such contrary things!

What I wrote fits very well with the definition of corporate responsibility

No, it doesn't. You can try to distort it if you wish but that doesn't make it anywhere close to true. "The interests of the customers" includes things like keeping their credit card information safe, by protecting the company's computers against hackers. It involves ensuring that products aren't deceptively unsafe -- that's more than just being sure that they comply with regulations, but also ensuring that you do all you can to prevent dangers unforeseen by the regulations. You're debasing the whole concept of corporate social responsibility by trying to hang the menu choices you don't like on that. Let's not trash the constructive, interesting discussion we've been having by trivializing it in this way.

I will agree with you wholeheartedly about one thing, though: much of the dining related criticism is -- for lack of a better word, although I try not to be so harsh -- rather petty.

And wholly unworthy of being brought into the same paragraph as something as truly important as corporate social responsibility.

On a brighter note, have you been reading the reports that the children's menus have been changing?

You mean, changing again. Yup, saw it. They change every four or five months. There never was any doubt that things will change. Don't expect that every change will go in the same direction though. That would be an unreasonable expectation.

So, even though it doesn't appear that Disney guests have dramatically changed their buying habits,

What are you talking about? Are you in possession of some inside information about guest purchasing habits? What makes you think the sloppy joes were a big seller???

Disney may be listening to guests' concerns, anyway.

They monitoring what guests buy.

 

[La2kw]

Why should Dining Plan patrons, sold the program with the promise that they'll be treated the same as all other diners, pay for food which is not as good as that provided to all other diners?

Maybe I missed that part, but I don't see anything in the DDP literature that promises anything about being treated the same as all other diners. Nothing specifies the quality of the food either. From my brochure:

The Disney Dining Plan includes one (1) Quick Service Meal, one (1) Snack, and one (1) Table
Service Meal per person, per night of your package stay for everyone in the party ages 3 and over.

It only mentions the meal types that are included. No mention of the quality of that food. The fact that the menus have changed in quality is proof of that anyway, IMO.