Is Free Dining dumbing down the menus?

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

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?

Because this way guests who don't purchase the DDP won't have to complain about bad food, where as guests who purchase the DDP (wheather it's free dinning or anytime of the year) would have known in advance what they were getting themselves into, so if they complain about the menus well no one forced them to purchase the DDP.

 

[bicker]

Yeah, sorry, no -- no sale. There is nothing in the Dining Plan brochure about being treated as second-class guests. That's a non-starter.

 

[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.

It has nothing at all to do with the specific grade of cuisine they offer at their restaurants, and that is not what I'm talking about. It does have to do with a company taking responsibility for business decisions they made -- whatever those decisions are. And it's not even that Disney isn't accepting responsibility for their business decisions -- it's that, in our conversation, you are saying Disney's cost cutting and offering a lower quality product is not their responsibility -- it's somehow the responsibility of the guests -- and that Disney's only responsibility is to make money for the shareholders. On that, we just won't agree.

The only thing even remotely that it has to do with the grade of cuisine being offered is that if a company is going to cut corners so closely that quality suffers drastically, and the customers get fed up with the poor product and stop buying it, then the company is not meeting their corporate responsibility to their shareholders. If Disney undermines the reputation they have built over the years for quality, then they are not meeting their responsibility to their shareholders because they are devaluing the brand name.

And there is a corporate ethical responsibility to provide a reasonable value for the price charged. Oh boy, I'm sure this isn't going to go over well but here goes anyway:

I offer to sell you a shirt for $10. You buy it and it's a decent shirt, it was a reasonable value.

I offer to sell you a shirt for $10. You take it home and it falls apart the first time you wash it. I sold you a shirt, I didn't promise you it would last. There is no law that says I have to stand behind the quality of the shirt I sold you. What if I only charged $5? What do you expect for $5 anyway? Maybe it was a disposable shirt, and you just didn't read the fine print. What if I sold it out of the trunk of my car in an empty lot, and you couldn't find me to request a refund?

You are more likely to buy a shirt from a reputable store that will stand behind the product they sold you. If you have a problem with it, you can bring it back and they will refund your money, or give you a new shirt. They will make the situation right. Not because the law requires it, but because it is ethically the right thing to do. It also makes good business sense, because otherwise you will never shop there again, and you will tell everyone what shoddy merchandise they sell, and the store's reputation then suffers. And although expensive doesn't always equal quality, the more a customer pays for a product, the more they expect out of it. You don't expect a Kia to perform or last like a Mercedes.

I'm sure you don't agree with me on this either. But this is one of the reasons why Disney is such a successful company -- they offer high quality products -- merchandise, food, entertainment, vacations -- and they stand behind that quality. Because they do more than provide the bare minimum they are obligated to, and often go well above and beyond expectations, they have loyal customers who are actually more of a "fan base", who keep coming back for more. And are willing to pay a premium (although they are well aware that it is very expensive) because Disney is the best. There are very few online communities singing the praises of Universal Studios or Six Flags, I've noticed.

 

[bicker]

It has nothing at all to do with the specific grade of cuisine they offer at their restaurants, and that is not what I'm talking about.

Then it seems that we've talked past each other. I think the discussion is getting too esoteric.

It does have to do with a company taking responsibility for business decisions they made -- whatever those decisions are.

No, I reject this. It's too vague to accept at face value. What are you really trying to say? What is the specific issue you're discussing?

And it's not even that Disney isn't accepting responsibility for their business decisions -- it's that, in our conversation, you are saying Disney's cost cutting and offering a lower quality product is not their responsibility -- it's somehow the responsibility of the guests

You're stating this as if their decision invariably involves culpability. You brush your teeth in the morning. Are you responsible for the brush strokes? That's how esoteric this sounds to me. Remember, I said that there is no blame... but if you want to blame someone for how things are, then blame the guests, because their preferences drive what Disney offers.

And there is a corporate ethical responsibility to provide a reasonable value for the price charged.

Which is exactly what they do. To suggest otherwise would imply that guests are idiots for not only paying it, but some paying it repeatedly over the last couple of years. That's insane!

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

Yeah, sorry, no -- no sale. There is nothing in the Dining Plan brochure about being treated as second-class guests. That's a non-starter.

With free dinning and everything that is good about the DDP guests who purchase it are no way close to being called a second-class guests. The reason my family and I don't purchase it is because in the long term it is not good for us. However with how great the DDP can be for large familes and etc, I think your wrong about your second-class guests comment.

 

[bicker]

... no way close to being cakked a second-class guests. ... I think your wrong about your second-class guests comment.

HuH? You're contradicting yourself, I believe. My comment was that there is nothing in the Dining Plan brochure about being treated as second-class guests. You're not actually suggesting that there is are you?

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

HuH? You're contradicting yourself, I believe. My comment was that there is nothing in the Dining Plan brochure about being treated as second-class guests. You're not actually suggesting that there is are you?

Your the one who brought that up, not me. All I said was to make it fair for people who purchase the DDP and for those who don't, seperate menus is the best thing to make both sides happy. So I said nothing about either side being treated as a second-class guest.

 

[Katiebell]

Then it seems that we've talked past each other. I think the discussion is getting too esoteric.

No, I reject this. It's too vague to accept at face value. What are you really trying to say? What is the specific issue you're discussing?

Yes, I agree that we've probably talked past each other I think that happens often because we have such vastly different viewpoints. OK...*deep breath*...let's see if we can summarize this, and find anything we can agree upon.

Several people have expressed that the quality dining at Disney has declined, and it isn't what it used to be. This does appear to be true -- menus have been standardized, in many cases less expensive or lower quality ingredients have been substituted, and some signature dishes removed from the menus. Agreed?

The topic of this thread is "Is Free Dining dumbing down the menus?" We've looked at it not just in the case of Free Dining (which has only been offered for very limited times each year), but "Is the DDP dumbing down the menus?"

My belief is not that the dining plan has caused the changes to the menus, but that Disney has implemented many changes in their food service to increase profit, and offering the dining plan is one of those changes. I'm not sure, but I think you agree with this.

Some people blame Disney for the decrease in the quality of dining, and some also blame their fellow guests, and seem quite angry that people are buying and utilizing the plan, and filling up the restaurants, and accepting lower quality food. I've seen some rather unkind, unfair, and rather elitist comments and stereotypes about the "class of people" that purchase and use the dining plan (not just on this thread, but on many others). I believe we are both in agreement that there is a lot of blame and finger pointing, and that neither Disney nor the guests buying the plan are to "blame". Are we still on the same page?

I think this is somewhere around where our viewpoints diverge.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that if anyone is responsible for the unfavorable changes that have taken place, it is the guests. We the people have shown Disney what we want and what we are willing to pay for, and Disney has responded, because they have a financial responsibility to their stockholders to be profitable. If I am understanding you, then yes, I agree with your point, and I do see what you are saying.

My point is that Disney, as a company, is ultimately responsible for the business decisions they make. Yes, they are trying to read the customers and offer products and services that we will buy, so they can make lots of money, the stockholders are happy, the cogs in the big Capitalism Machine turn, and we can send our kids to college and retire But the Disney powers that be are the ones coming up with the offers. If Disney didn't offer the dining plan, and keep offering it, then customers wouldn't buy it. Whatever business decisions Disney makes -- offering the dining plan, raising the price, offering it for free during the slow season, dropping it altogether, buying cheaper ingredients, standardizing TS menus, wiping out every TS menu and turning all TS restaurants to CS -- those are Disney's decisions. Whether they make money or lose money, whether the guests love the changes or hate them, they are Disney's responsibility. And Disney needs to stand by those decisions, or if they were bad decisions (bad for the stockholders, bad for the employees, bad for the customers, or bad for the environment), then Disney needs to correct them. I see the customers' buying behavior in response to the offers initiated by Disney.

 

[Katiebell]

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?

So people who are on the plan should pay for food that is not up to WDW standards? I'm a little confused.

How would the menus be separate? What would be different about them -- portion size? Quality of ingredients? Presentation? The menu items in general? Or maybe the dining plan should only be good at buffet restaurants, but not standard TS restaurants with a menu?

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

So people who are on the plan should pay for food that is not up to WDW standards? I'm a little confused.

How would the menus be separate? What would be different about them -- portion size? Quality of ingredients? Presentation? The menu items in general? Or maybe the dining plan should only be good at buffet restaurants, but not standard TS restaurants with a menu?

How are people who use the DDP in general are paying for their food? I know they purchased a package deal for it and etc, but in times like free dinning their food is free so I think complaining their does not look. When it's not free dinning they are still using credits, where as other guests are paying OOP.

As for your question I agree for people on the plan should not get bad food, however why should guests who are not on the DDP pay for the same food when they are paying a lot more for their WDW vacation. So it's either seperate menus or WDW should make them a lot better to the way they were before the DDP got so popular.

 

[Katiebell]

How are people who use the DDP in general are paying for their food? I know they purchased a package deal for it and etc, but in times like free dinning their food is free so I think complaining their does not look. When it's not free dinning they are still using credits, where as other guests are paying OOP.

As for your question I agree for people on the plan should not get bad food, however why should guests who are not on the DDP pay for the same food when they are paying a lot more for their WDW vacation. So it's either seperate menus or WDW should make them a lot better to the way they were before the DDP got so popular.

Hmmm...I think I would disagree that people not on the dining plan are paying a lot more for their vacation.

People getting "free dining" are not eligible for any room discounts at all -- they pay rack rate, during the hurricane season. Many crunched the numbers and have found that they would pay less if they pay OOP for their food and get a room discount instead.

Those of us paying for the dining plan (the other 46 weeks a year), are paying $39 per day per adult. Yes, it's decent discount if you actually use all of your credits, and are likely to order an appetizer and dessert with every TS meal and order more expensive entrees. If you order less, or less expensive entrees (we can't eat shellfish for example, and there are times I'd rather have an entree salad or pasta than a steak), then the savings is even lower. If you like character meals which are primarily buffets or family style service for a set price...then the dining plan can be just about a break even -- but it's convenient, the gratuity is included (at least for NOW), and it's nice to know our meals are prepaid, and we don't have to worry about the prices on the menu for the most part. But without the dining plan, we would likely spend less than $80/day for the two of us.

I truly don't believe the unpopular changes to the menus are being caused by the dining plan. I believe Disney is cutting costs across the board -- and the dining plan just happens to be one of the changes Disney made to increase their profits overall.

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

I also believe that the DDP is responsible for the restaurant kitchens sending lunch time food out so fast, so the servers can turn the tables over as fast as they can. I know that it can be a good thing because you get right back into the parks, but still it feels like your being rushed to eat. This was something my family and I experienced when having lunch on two occasions at 50's Prime Time Cafe and at the Plaza. However that is a topic for another time.

 

[bicker]

Your the one who brought that up, not me.

I brought it up as a negative.

All I said was to make it fair for people who purchase the DDP and for those who don't, seperate menus is the best thing to make both sides happy.

There is no reason to believe that Dining Plan patrons would prefer separate menus, and no reason to believe that either approach Disney choose to apply is unfair.

So I said nothing about either side being treated as a second-class guest.

How do you characterize the difference between these separate menus you are advocating? Are they the same? Or aren't they?

 

[bicker]

Some people blame Disney for the decrease in the quality of dining, and some also blame their fellow guests, and seem quite angry that people are buying and utilizing the plan, and filling up the restaurants, and accepting lower quality food.

So since that's misdirected emotion, let's focus on that. As I said several times, there is no blame to be assessed. Things are the way they are; they're the way they're supposed to be; no one has done anything wrong; if people don't like the way things are they could legitimately be sad, but not angry. Let's agree on that.

I've seen some rather unkind, unfair, and rather elitist comments and stereotypes about the "class of people" that purchase and use the dining plan (not just on this thread, but on many others).

Despicable perspectives, IMHO. Let's also agree on that.

I see the customers' buying behavior in response to the offers initiated by Disney.

This is a dodge, nothing more. You're trying to rationalize misdirected anger at Disney. Anger is without foundation, because they're doing what they're supposed to do, acting responsibly and conscientiously. The wording you advocate is easily distorted by some into justification for reckless aspersions, and therefore unacceptable.

 

[bicker]

As for your question I agree for people on the plan should not get bad food, however why should guests who are not on the DDP pay for the same food when they are paying a lot more for their WDW vacation.

Your premise is wrong. There is effectively no difference between paying for the Dining Plan and participating in the free dining promotion; as a matter of fact, some moderate resort guests had a hard time choosing between the 40% room rate discount that was offered to them versus the free dining, which is nothing more than a $38.99 per person per night discount. So paying for the Dining Plan and getting it as part of the free dining promotion is the same... people are getting what they pay for, and both offerings cost the same. Therefore, since both are effectively paying the same, both should get the same.

 

[bicker]

I also believe that the DDP is responsible for the restaurant kitchens sending lunch time food out so fast, so the servers can turn the tables over as fast as they can.

I believe you're mistaken. I believe the kitchens are doing that because they can, and because it is acceptable to patrons. There is no evidence proving that the Dining Plan, specifically, is prompting that.

 

[Santa]

Oh, I don't really care.

It all goes in one end and comes out the other end anywho.

 

[Lewisc]

How many theme park restaurant customers are looking for leisurely, fine dining? Maybe at Bistro? My guess the majority of guests, particularly those with young children, want to eat and run. Just tell your server you're not in a rush. Even the waiters at 50's Prime Time Cafe won't clear your plate while you're still eating. Just don't give your dessert order until you finish your lunch if you're in a rush.

I also believe that the DDP is responsible for the restaurant kitchens sending lunch time food out so fast, so the servers can turn the tables over as fast as they can. I know that it can be a good thing because you get right back into the parks, but still it feels like your being rushed to eat. This was something my family and I experienced when having lunch on two occasions at 50's Prime Time Cafe and at the Plaza. However that is a topic for another time.

 

[Katiebell]

This is a dodge, nothing more. You're trying to rationalize misdirected anger at Disney. Anger is without foundation, because they're doing what they're supposed to do, acting responsibly and conscientiously. The wording you advocate is easily distorted by some into justification for reckless aspersions, and therefore unacceptable.

OMG, I just spit coffee on my keyboard!

bicker, my dear friend/nemesis, I have no anger toward Disney regarding this issue. None. My wording is no more likely to be distorted by some into reckless aspersions than your statements that if anyone is responsible, it is the guests. Really, at this point, we have come down to a fundamental philosophical difference about the roles and responsibilities of big business and the "little guy". I can't go any further than this without just repeating and restating myself, or giving examples that are way off topic. One thing I've learned, is that issues can be discussed and you can hear all sorts of different opinions on forums like these -- some may even make you think of another angle to an issue and change your mind about a subject, or make you even more certain of your position -- but you will never resolve fundamental philosophical differences on the internet. They are at the core of our being and make us who we are -- kind of like our religious beliefs.

I'm leaving for WDW late Saturday night, and I fully intend to enjoy my stay, and all of my meals on the dining plan

Oh, I don't really care.

It all goes in one end and comes out the other end anywho.

Yep, that about sums it up!

 

[NYDisGuy]

How many theme park restaurant customers are looking for leisurely, fine dining? Maybe at Bistro? My guess the majority of guests, particularly those with young children, want to eat and run. Just tell your server you're not in a rush. Even the waiters at 50's Prime Time Cafe won't clear your plate while you're still eating. Just don't give your dessert order until you finish your lunch if you're in a rush.

I don't think it is in the majority. It's different if it's a counter service place and your just eating a quick burger then hopping on more rides. Most people take the time to research the restaurant and get a perfect adr for their family. I dont think they would want to run in and out. For alot of other people, instead of going back to the resort for a rest, they would just do a sit down meal. In some cases the price can have an effect to because people will tend to sit down and enjoy their meal more.