Lewis' Sharing Charge Idea

[bicker]

In reference to this message:
http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=11930513&postcount=22

 

[keishashadow]

Most restaurants in resort areas we frequent have the plate-sharing charge in place, surprised WDW doesn't offer it.

Typically, senior (i.e. smaller) portions are also available, to anyone.

Other than dining plan & buffet issues, long overdue IMO.

 

[Merriwind]

I don't see what the comsumer has to gain with option #1. I am very petite, 5'1", 105# and eat accordingly. It's bad enough I pay the same at buffets as the 6', 200# guys and teenage boys. If I had to pay almost double to share with DD8 (who turns her nose up at chicken fingers, hot dogs and the like), I would choke!

Am I missing something? Why would anyone want #1?

 

[LuluLovesDisney]

I chose #2.

While I think offering half portions at a reduced cost is an *excellent* idea, I think that 12 for a whole and 10 for a half is too obvious an example of price-gouging. 8 or 9 would be fair.

The bigger issue is the sharing charge. Many, many people share meals in WDW and I think they would be upset if Disney all of a sudden had a sharing charge, let alone a 10 dollar one. To jump from getting something for free to paying ten bucks a clip would be a little jarring and to pay ten dollars more for the same plate of food than someone who eats in themselves it insane. It would kill the financial benefits of sharing, so many fewer people would do it. Plus Disney gets many more appetizer and dessert orders from people who have shared an entree.

I know if DBF and I each get an entree we will rarely get appetizers or dessert. If we are sharing an entree, we will often get both an appetizer and a dessert.


Disney's all about being accomodating- yay for the half portion option, nay for the sharing surcharge, imo.

 

[bicker]

That seems a little too customer-focused to be fair. The $12 / $10 numbers reflect a fair estimate of the difference necessary to maintain a revenue-neutral alternative. Definitely NOT price-gouging -- to offer the half-portion for any less would likely end up reducing the restaurant's profitability -- no sense in making a change in that case, right? The sharing surchage was Lewis' idea for making up for that.

 

[Merriwind]

That seems a little too customer-focused to be fair. The $12 / $10 numbers reflect a fair estimate of the difference necessary to maintain a revenue-neutral alternative. Definitely NOT price-gouging -- to offer the half-portion for any less would likely end up reducing the restaurant's profitability -- no sense in making a change in that case, right? The sharing surchage was Lewis' idea for making up for that.

But seriously, you can't think that customers will think that getting half the food, but paying 83 percent of full price is anything but price gouging. The same for charging nearly double the price of a single entree to share a single entree. Price-gouging seems the appropriate term to me.

 

[Tine731]

I have dined at vero beach and this was offered to me several times during my trip. On menu items that were able to be halved I was charged half the price plus $2.00. It was a great way to save a few $$ and my waistband.

 

[blueroses]

I would be most happy if restaurants (inside and outside the World) would simply serve appropriate portion sizes in the first place. I don't really care about the price.

Unfortunately, my most frequent dining partner is my husband (that's not the unfortunate part) and we do not share because we have wildly differing tastes (that's the unfortunate part).

I'm not a big fan of leftovers or doggie bags (especially on vacation), but I have been known to specifically request a reasonable portion size when dining out so I won't eat 3 or 4 servings of pasta or whatever just because my parents always told me to clean my plate. And, no, I don't expect to pay any less for my request. So I guess my choice is 1/2 portion at $12, which wasn't one of the choices.

 

[DVC Sadie]

I chose #1. I think Disneyworld will start a splitting meal charge especially since so many are trying to split everything on the dining plan.

 

[dcgrumpy]

I have dined at vero beach and this was offered to me several times during my trip. On menu items that were able to be halved I was charged half the price plus $2.00. It was a great way to save a few $$ and my waistband.

That I would do, but $10 for half would feel like throwing money doen the drain to me. I would pay $5 to share, but no way would I spend $10 if I can get my own meal for only $2 more.

 

[Chuck S]

I think if they do start a splitting charge, it will be because of the dining plan. Like LuluLovesDisney, Mom & I often split an entree, but each order a salad or soup for appetizers. If we were not able to do so, we'd probably either each order an entree, and no appetizer. With what WDW charges for salads/soups, the total bill works out about the same. But then again, we may just order salads and NO entrees if the policy changes, and the restaurant (and server) would not make as much $$ from our table.

 

[LuluLovesDisney]

I would be most happy if restaurants (inside and outside the World) would simply serve appropriate portion sizes in the first place. I don't really care about the price.

Unfortunately, my most frequent dining partner is my husband (that's not the unfortunate part) and we do not share because we have wildly differing tastes (that's the unfortunate part).

I'm not a big fan of leftovers or doggie bags (especially on vacation), but I have been known to specifically request a reasonable portion size when dining out so I won't eat 3 or 4 servings of pasta or whatever just because my parents always told me to clean my plate. And, no, I don't expect to pay any less for my request. So I guess my choice is 1/2 portion at $12, which wasn't one of the choices.

Agree with you about the portions- it's tempting to eat it all. I am lucky my boyfriend and I share very similar tastes.

Two questions-

Why would you want to pay 12 for a 1/2 portion when that is the same price as a full portion? You want to pay the same for both?

And second- is your name a reference to The Glass Menagerie? I love that play!

 

[blueroses]

Well, like bicker, I understand that a 1/2 portion of a meal does not mean it costs the restaurant 1/2 the price of the full portion to serve it to me. On the other hand, I know there are customers who want and expect the larger portions that restaurants serve. So I see my request for a smaller portion as the same as any other special request I might make (sauce on the side, etc.). The restaurant is not compelled to grant my request and then give me a discount of top of it. Now sometimes, when I ask for a smaller portion of something, I'll ask the restaurant if they can fill that part of the plate with extra vegetables and usually places are really good about doing that.

I used to have a problem with my weight and have subsequently become very assertive when ordering at restaurants (but I'm a fun person to dine with - I promise!).

To answer your second question, yes, that is exactly where it comes from. Nice catch.

 

[bicker]

But seriously, you can't think that customers will think that getting half the food, but paying 83 percent of full price is anything but price gouging.

Actually, I can. I think customers can be expected to be sufficiently intelligent to look around and see a lot more than ingredients at a restaurant, I'm sure. To the extent that we cannot rely on that level of rational logic, then I suppose we have an obligation to help those who don't understand understand the reality of the service they're seeking to patronize.

 

[formernyer]

I vote for #2, although I think a modified version of your plan would be acceptable.

I think a half portion plate is a good idea, but I doubt anyone would pay the crazy prices you're suggesting. If the normal meal price is $12, then a half portion price should be around $8.

There should never be a charge for meal sharing IMO. If I purchase a meal and pay full price for it, then I should be able to eat it any way I choose, even if that means I choose to share it with somebody else. How is sharing my meal with another member of my party any different than taking it home in a doggie bag? Either way I'm getting the same amount of food. Perhaps you can make the argument that the waiter needs to carry an extra plate and some silverware to the table, but that's actually LESS work (and less disgusting) than having to package up my leftover, half-eaten food into a doggie bag. You might also make the argument that a non-paying customer is taking up a seat in the restaurant, but that argument isn't really valid either, since the same size table would be needed with or out without the non-paying customer. It's also no different from somebody who takes up a seat at the table with his/her family and isn't hungry so chooses to not eat at all...the servers wouldn't kick those people out. Overall, charging for plate sharing is just a total ripoff.

There is one thing which I believe would help Disney. The way the DDP is now with no distinction on the credits between child and adult promotes plate-sharing (and misappropriation of DDP credits) where it might not otherwise be done. Take my family for example. It's just me and two kids, ages 10 and 9. Two adult meals is more than enough to fill all three of us. On Day 1 we can order two adult meals on the credits and split the two meals. On Day 2 repeat the same process. So far I don't think there's any problem/abuse here. On Day three, however, we can repeat the same process (purchasing two adult meals) but we'd be using the two "leftover" child credits that we didn't need on days 1 and 2. Since Disney doesn't differentiate between a child's meal and an adult meal, we basically just got a lot more food than we paid for on the plan.

I guess my overall assessment of your poll is that you're focusing on an issue that is far less significant to Disney than one of their other dining issues. They're going to lose a lot more from DDP credit abuse than they ever will from plate sharing.

 

[bicker]

I think a half portion plate is a good idea, but I doubt anyone would pay the crazy prices you're suggesting. If the normal meal price is $12, then a half portion price should be around $8.

And I think this really points out why so many places don't offer such a choice: For the restaurant, "fair" is a $2 difference; for patrons, "fair" is a $4 difference. Splitting the difference ($3) doesn't satisfy either!

There should never be a charge for meal sharing IMO.

This is not realistic. I think if restauranteurs had their druthers, they'd charge per person for everything, with no difference in price for different entrees (with minor exception). The difference in price between mussels fra diablo and chicken cacciatore is practically insignificant. So meal-sharing really reflects a loss for a restaurant, in every case except when, in its absence ,the patron would have eaten somewhere else.

How is sharing my meal with another member of my party any different than taking it home in a doggie bag?

Generally, full-service restaurants aren't in the business of carrying on a take-out business. It's a completely different business model.

We've recently read a report that at least one WDW restaurant is refusing requests for "take-out" orders.

Either way I'm getting the same amount of food. Perhaps you can make the argument that the waiter needs to carry an extra plate and some silverware to the table, but that's actually LESS work (and less disgusting) than having to package up my leftover, half-eaten food into a doggie bag.

I think I mentioned this in the referenced thread: Labor is the single biggest expense for a restaurant, followed by the cost of customer acquisition and the cost of facilities. All three scale based on the number of patrons, not the amount of food.

I guess my overall assessment of your poll is that you're focusing on an issue that is far less significant to Disney than one of their other dining issues. They're going to lose a lot more from DDP credit abuse than they ever will from plate sharing.

I agree. Not every thread has to be the most important issue...

 

[lowie]

What if you were ordering a steak dinner and the sharing charge included an extra portion of starch and veggie? just split the steak? then i'd pay.. otherwise i'd get the full portion as paying $10 for half of a $12 plate seems high to me.

 

[bicker]

THAT sounds like a great idea. The added cost of the starch and veggie would be insignificant to the restaurant.

 

[Lewisc]

my comment to your post was really intended as a general restaurant observation. I don't see Disney imposing a sharing charge or charging less for smaller portions. Some restaurants explain that the plate charge includes an extra salad as well as extra bread. When the meal is divided in the kitchen inevitably the customers wind up getting extra potatoes and vegetables. At least the customers think they're getting something for the extra money. Obviously it is also intended to include some of the overhead of the restaurant.

If Disney saw the need for a "sharing charge" I think they'd just go the route of going to a fixed price menu that all guests have to order from. There might be a surcharge for some items but everyone would have to order off the menu. Disney already does that for buffets and all you care to eat restaurants and now even for CRT. I can see Disney considering that for CG. It would circumvent the sharing and dessert only strategies.

 

[ugadog99]

We are a family of three. Often, we will get one appetizer, two entrees, and one or two desserts. We all share. It is much more economical for us, we can eat at whichever restaurant we pick, and we don't waste too much food. Obviously, buffets and preplate can't work this way, but regular TS restaurants can. I would not like the sharing charge at all.