New dress code

[DancingBear]

Bret, regarding the anti-Disney class conciousness which you think this policy creates, which is worse:

--a few signature restaurants in the resorts that anybody can attend in blue jeans, sneakers and a polo shirt

or

--a private club within a theme park with a jacket requirement?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Big problem scoop...With all of this talk we are forgetting that Artist Point and Jiko are having problems under the current policy staying busy.

Whenever the Pirate clan makes a last minute trip, as was last weekend we can NEVER get in last minute at say CG or 'Ohana but can ALWAYS get in at Jiko or AP...Does Disney want to risk making these two extremely good restaurants even less popular? Or is it your contention that the 'well dressed crowd' will step to the plate and fill these establishments if the riff raff is kept at bay?

 

[DancingBear]

Or is it your contention that the 'well dressed crowd' will step to the plate and fill these establishments if the riff raff is kept at bay?

I dunno, but I assume the marketing decision has been made to create the concept of "signature" restaurants, and the hope is that the message will get out that these are nice restaurants that should be thought of in the same vein with CA Grill and such.

Whether folks can figure out how to get to Artist Point from their convention at Coronado Springs, or to Jiko from the Contemporary is another matter.

But, honestly, do you think the policy will hurt business? The issue is quite contentious over here on the Debate, uhhh, I mean, News and Rumors Board, but the posters on the Disney Restaurants Board are overwhelmingly supportive of the policy.

 

[Peter Pirate]

How sure are you of Jiko's financial success? Because I eat there a lot and there is seldom any waiting and always more than a few empty tables. Don't get me wrong I like it this way rather than the zoo that takes place at the FF podium every night ... and forget CG - I'm friends with the Sous Chef and know the Chef and can't even get in without a reservation! Hmmm...Maybe I'm not that good of friend.

 

[Peter Pirate]

It's not "no one is going" scoop, it's just seldom over crowded...So perhaps you're analysis is correct and I do trust your sources, which is why I asked.

 

[raidermatt]

This was about two years ago, but when we finished our meal at Boma, several of us were standing outside the waiting area, in the space between Jiko and Boma. The Boma lobby had been crowded when we arrived, and was still crowded as we were leaving. There were several CMs from Jiko out in that area trying to get guests to come over to Jiko, pointing out that there was no wait and "plenty of room".

Certainly this gave the impression, whether intended or not, that the place was in need of some customers.

What does that prove? Nada, since its just a single point in time experience. Still, since we like to share our personal experiences, I thought this one appropriate given the turn the conversation has taken.

Certainly restaurants like Jiko have higher margins than restaurants like Boma, so they don't need to be as crowded. And Scoop's point about location is a good one. Jiko is just not in a good location to attract a lot of non-AKL guests.

But I'm not sure how raising the bar on the dress code is going to help a restaurant like Jiko, especially in its location, in terms of increasing the number of guests. That change alone (if in fact it is a real change at all) isn't going to get people to hop on a bus from another resort and go to another stop so they can get on another bus and go to the AKL. Perhaps guests leaving the AK park might want to try it (as we did with Boma) but that is now even less likely with the new dress code.

Same idea with the FF, as Scoop pointed out. Its on the Boardwalk and within walking distance from MGM and Epcot. They really should allow for the spontaneous guest decision.

Pray tell, what could that be?

Once again, the most likely possibilities:

1- They are posting the code with no intent to enforce it any differently than they already did. However, by posting it, they think they will at least marginally raise the level of dress in the restaurants. This would decrease the already small number of complaints they receive, and....

2- Allow for prices to increase, thereby increasing margins (a stated goal of the company). If, as has been stated, the purpose of this is to "enhance the experience" for the guests, you can't tell me that it is not beyond Disney to increase the price for this enhanced experience. We hear this all the time around here. "You get what you pay for and that's how the world works". Certainly Disney has adopted this philosophy when it comes to its resorts, so if raising the dress code really does enhance the experience, how can anyone claim they wouldn't eventually charge a little more for that enhancment?

The more strict the enforcement, the more enhanced the experience.

 

[raidermatt]

Bret, regarding the anti-Disney class conciousness which you think this policy creates, which is worse:

--a few signature restaurants in the resorts that anybody can attend in blue jeans, sneakers and a polo shirt

or

--a private club within a theme park with a jacket requirement?

Given the relative level of promotion, and also relative visibility, the restaurants. They are in every guidebook, on maps, lists, etc. Club 33 at DL, to which I assume you are referring, is not heavily promoted, and most guests do not even know it exists, never mind actually tell you where the door is.

That said, it probably shouldn't be there either. But if it wasn't a mistake, it was because of the way it was kept out of the view of the "regular" guests. If it was a mistake, then moves like this one are taking the mistake to the next level.

 

[DancingBear]

Once again, the most likely possibilities:

1- They are posting the code with no intent to enforce it any differently than they already did. However, by posting it, they think they will at least marginally raise the level of dress in the restaurants. This would decrease the already small number of complaints they receive, and....

2- Allow for prices to increase, thereby increasing margins (a stated goal of the company). If, as has been stated, the purpose of this is to "enhance the experience" for the guests, you can't tell me that it is not beyond Disney to increase the price for this enhanced experience. We hear this all the time around here. "You get what you pay for and that's how the world works". Certainly Disney has adopted this philosophy when it comes to its resorts, so if raising the dress code really does enhance the experience, how can anyone claim they wouldn't eventually charge a little more for that enhancment?

I believe 1, hard to believe anyone at Disney would think 2 could follow, except in a very marginal sort of way. I'd say the idea is that when the conventioneers are looking for a place to go on the expense account, or when a couple (including the locals, as the Professor points out) is looking for a special meal out, they might latch onto (or be directed by Disney) the "signature restaurant" as a destination.

 

[Uncleromulus]

--and for which "signature" restaurant they can already "dress up" if they wish. The only issue here is making everyone dress up, like it or not. I'm asking now--has anyone here NOT gone to a place like Jiko because everyone and their cousin wasn't dressed up?? Did that keep you away??? Did it matter that much??
I must confess-I never decided not to eat at a restaurant just because everyone might not be dressed in business casual. Wouldn't even occur to me. Wouldn't matter. If I felt like dressing up for dinner, I would. If I didn't, I'd appreciate NOT having to.
If and when they start tossing "theme park dressed" families out of WDW restaurants in favor of business casual conventioneers, it'll be a sad day.

 

[mitros]

To whom it may concern: {covered myself on that one, didn't I?} I said it before, and I will say it again, dress as you please, just don't come to a nice restaurant smelling like you had been working out at the gym all morning. If I am paying $40 for a meal, I would prefer the fragrance of Berbere braised lamb shank, Lemon-cumin marinated Ahi tuna, and Kalamata olive flatbread, and NOT your fragrance of BO. {You know who you are }


Note to Sarangel: It's a joke, you know.

 

[bretsytwo]

Bret, regarding the anti-Disney class conciousness which you think this policy creates, which is worse:

--a few signature restaurants in the resorts that anybody can attend in blue jeans, sneakers and a polo shirt

or

--a private club within a theme park with a jacket requirement?

a PRIVATE club that's also pretty well hidden and secret, and normal guests don't even know exists.

Thats far better than knowing you could go somewhere if only you were good enough.

If Disney wants to build some obscure club to sit around steaming in towels and eating shellfish, fine by me so long as it brings in money and doesn't take away anything.

We aren't talking about that. We are talking about restaurants advertised in your hotel, that you walk by and longlingly gaze into, that are on the stinking vacation planning video.

 

[DancingBear]

"Betty Sue, stop gazing longlingly at that there Jeeko, and get your Daisy Duke's over here into Boma's. Them there citified snobs don't want us in there. Next year, we're taking our Texas Tea money to Uneeversal!"

 

[raidermatt]

I believe 1, hard to believe anyone at Disney would think 2 could follow, except in a very marginal sort of way. I'd say the idea is that when the conventioneers are looking for a place to go on the expense account, or when a couple (including the locals, as the Professor points out) is looking for a special meal out, they might latch onto (or be directed by Disney) the "signature restaurant" as a destination.

Look, the dress code either makes a difference or it doesn't. As Uncle R said, one can dress nice if one wants anyway. The question is, does it matter to these conventioneers and couples what everybody else is wearing. Or more to the point, does it matter to them if a small percentage are wearing t-shirts and/or flip flops.

If having this dress code does in fact "enhance the experience", or "create a fine dining destination", then it creates value in the eyes of at least some, and extra value means extra price.

If it really doesn't add any value in anyone's eyes, than why do it? And if it does, why think that Disney won't charge for it?

 

[raidermatt]

Scoop, there's a couple of problems with your position.

1- Choices are being removed from some.

2- What's being added to those who want this is that certain guests will be kept away from them, or at least forced to adhere to the standards imposed on them by others. This isn't a simple let everybody have what they want. Its a case where the wants of some impose on the wants of others. Some say in both directions, but regardless, its not the simple choice you lay out.

Yes, this happens all the time, and yes, Disney is free to impose whatever standards it wants. But this isn't what the place was supposed to be about, and there are very valid business reasons for keeping it that way.

On Bistro, they have at least had some kind of dress code going back to '02 which was "no tank tops". I think if limited to that, its fairly reasonable given its location. But given my choice, I wouldn't impose any dress code on it other that whatever is acceptable in the park. So obviously if it goes to a code that is more strict, I would disagree with it even more.

 

[bretsytwo]

So, when you suggest that person's choices are being taken away, you are right--the persons that want to go to a traditional "dressed up" restaurant for the evening. Those are the ones whose choices at Disney are limited to one single place.

SPIN

Dradle dradle dradle...

First of all, nothing was taken away. They didn't have it in the 1st place.

Second of all the "choice" you are referring to is that NOT to see other people in T-shirts.

That's silly. Disney is a place for everyone. These guests want to go to a place that isn't welcome to everyone. You still have the personal option to dress up or down.

But I'm not suprised, it's like your insidious comment that everything should shut down directly after illuminations so that all of those pesky guests can clear out so you can have your quiet walk at 9:30 instead of later.

Come on man, give the most guests the best Disney experience you can give them. It's that simple.

If you want to go to a Disney park or a restaurant and not be bothered by the masses, visit California Adventure.

 

[DancingBear]

that's dreidel, dreidel, dreidel

 

[DancingBear]

Look, the dress code either makes a difference or it doesn't. As Uncle R said, one can dress nice if one wants anyway. The question is, does it matter to these conventioneers and couples what everybody else is wearing. Or more to the point, does it matter to them if a small percentage are wearing t-shirts and/or flip flops.

Ask all those folks on the Restaurant board who said "it's about time" and such. Or pop in on the cruise board when they're discussing the dress code at Palo's (or even in the dining rooms).

If having this dress code does in fact "enhance the experience", or "create a fine dining destination", then it creates value in the eyes of at least some, and extra value means extra price.

If it really doesn't add any value in anyone's eyes, than why do it? And if it does, why think that Disney won't charge for it?

First, I've said all along this only has a marginal effect. Second, I think Disney may think they will make more money, ultimately, from the whole "signature restaurant" marketing scheme (including the dress code), by attracting more folks who are "making an evening" of their meal, and will by the wine and such and thereby increase their tabs. It's not about the dress code per se, but about creating a destination restaurant experience.

 

[airlarry!]

Hundreds of posts...and people are still saying polos and khaki shorts is considered "dressing up"--in what universe is wearing a colored short sleeve $9.99 shirt from landsend.com with walking shorts on sale from old navy considered dressing up or business casual?

In fact, show me the job that lets this kind of clothes be considered even Dress Down Friday and I'll eat my keyboard.

Yes, I have been inundated with thousands of email messages from a certain CM--who incidently is convincing me to some degree--but it really hurts the credibility of this discussion when certain people call this new policy "dressing up", donchathink?

(Then again, I am a southerner. We wore coats and ties to football games like a bunch of morons. Maybe the rest of the world is right and I should be going to church in a speedo and my nike sandals--or maybe to a wedding reception in biker shorts and sleeveless t-shirts).

 

[raidermatt]

Larry, don't you start getting hung up on semantics too. There's enough of that already.

In the context of this thread, "dressing-up" means the elevated code posted. Its a little easier to say that than it is to layout the whole dang code everytime. Sheesh. Cajuns.

And yes, bretsytwo is right on with his comments above. WDW cannot be all things to all people. There's a reason that "fine dining experiences" that include elevated dress codes were largely non-existent on Disney property. There's LOTS of things that don't exist on Disney property that LOTS of people like to do. Even so, fine dining is welcome at WDW, and it works just fine without the elevated dress codes.

And you guys need to stop this stuff about all those supporters on the Restaurant board. First, whenever the opinions of Dis'ers has been brought up as evidence against something Disney has done, those opinions have been dismissed as the prattlings of internet fanboys and fangirls.

Second, I don't read many stories about people having their experience ruined by the guy with a Mickey Mouse t-shirt on. Its the guy with the ratty clothes or the people straight from the pool, which nobody is arguing shouldn't be banned. Or its the girl with the jeans cut too low, the skirt cut too high, or the smelly guy, NONE of which is banned by this policy, even if it is enforced to the letter.

Frankly, I'd say height-restricted rides, Jellyrolls, and Pleasure Island are much more violative of Walt's goal of allowing the family to experience these times together.

Yeah, and when I argued against the move to more height-restricted rides, you argued with me (and others) for pages, so you know where I stand on that.

It's not about the dress code per se, but about creating a destination restaurant experience.

Oh, but it IS about the dress code. Are you telling me that prior to this latest code change, California Grill was not a destination restaurant experience (DRE)? Of course you're not. The difference in dress codes has so little to do with making the place a "DRE" that I can't see how you argue that its necessary with a straight face. Its going to contribute almost nothing to that goal, yet it will cause some guests TRUE inconvenience (not the inconvenience of seeing Mickey Mouse tshirt), and make others feel less welcome in general. Not huge numbers of course, but its still not worth it.

 

[bretsytwo]

Call it spin if you'd like but check around the Disney boards here and most other places and you'll find that most of the regular everyday Disney guests commenting on this think its a good idea. Are they too part of the spin conspiracy?

Spin was not in reference to someones particular stance that Disney should do this. People can reasonably disagree. Spin was in reference to your specific post about it "taking options away" when it clearly wasn't.

And You can consider that a compliment because I think you are way to smart to believe the dumb things you type. For example the above, you already knew what my answer was going to be, but you spun my spin accusation into me attacking everyone with the viewpoint. It's OK, though, you are a lawyer, you've had too many years of being evil to change now, and I expect as much.

Perhaps I'll reconsider the smart thing if you continue on at this pace.

that's dreidel, dreidel, dreidel

You say tomato, and I spell it wrong.

or maybe to a wedding reception in biker shorts and sleeveless t-shirts).

I believe this is the standard in Massachusetts.

I think it would be great to be able to get a bite to eat or quick drink after the Illuminations kiss goodnight, just as you can after the MK one.

And what about a ride or 3 on Maelstrom?

Frankly, I'd say height-restricted rides, Jellyrolls, and Pleasure Island are much more violative of Walt's goal of allowing the family to experience these times together.

I agree so far as jellyrolls and PI. Height Restricted rides are a safety or a show issue. Some attractions have restrictions simply because it's not safe, or they are unable to cater to some people. None of them are because some guy in a collared shirt wants to be able to ride a ride somewhere without any kids or people in wheelchairs.

So in summary. Slightly less casual is a-o-Disney-kay at:

1. The golf courses
2. Victoria & Alberts
3. La Nouba
4. Bistro de Paris (ugh, I'm beginning to sense a french theme here...)

But, not Jiko or Artist's Point.

That seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Seriously, and I mean seriously, did I miss something?

I've railed, and I believe I've been supported by matt that V+A as well as Bistro SHOULDN'T have policies.

As for golf and nouba they aren't arbitrary for me (though I've gone in nouba in a t shirt and didn't know it had dress standards).

As I stated, it's a golf tradition, like a uniform for the sport, like a hat in baseball, it's what golf IS. It's golf ettiquette, or cruise ettiquette that came FAR before Disney and therefore Disney is respecting their traditions. Not that I would mind golfing in casual wear, but I can accept Disney doing such a thing.

So far as Nouba, I assume they have dress codes at all of their other places. I don't think they should have to lower their standards just because they are at Disney. Cirque is a company all it's own and can do what they want.

So far as Disney using their property for places like Cirque, or McDonalds, or Rainforest Cafe, that's another story. Disney distributing others restaurants and entertainment? Lord...

And there has been a lot of pages on this.

So far as I can tell MOST people have been completely consistent on their stance, and instead of arguing the points of what Disney should be doing and why, we've had pages of pages of trying to prove people inconsistent.

It ain't gonna change, and scoop for one should know that with me.