New policy: No young kids at Victoria & Albert's

[WillCAD]

I didn't say you should "find another place to vacation", I just think it is ironic that a vacation destination which encourages one to vacation with their children (and I realize that there are many childless people there as well) has banned children from one of their restaurants. I am not sure "Disney World" is the place for that.

BTW, I went to DW on my honeymoon, we did not have children, so I have been there without kids, but I did not go in expecting to never encounter a disruptive child, in a restaurant or otherwise. To do so would be unreasonable, I feel.

Vacationing with your children does NOT mean you have to be with them 24/7 (unless you want to be.)

Being a family-oriented destination does NOT mean that every place, activity, and meal MUST include infants and toddlers.

And Disney has not "banned children" from one of its restaurants, it has set a minimum age for dining there, just as it sets minimum and maximum ages for the childrens' clubs and pirate cruises, and for spa treatments at the Grand Floridian, and just as it sets minimum heights for many attractions.

Nobody here is going to WDW "expecting to never encounter a disruptive child." In fact, we all expect a lot of child-related noise in most parts of WDW. All we want is a few non-bar or club places where we can escape the noise for a while with a nice meal and some tranquil grown-up conversation. Personally, I'd like to see 2 or 3 restaurants put a minimum age requirement on, so that I can have such a tranquil vacation experience without spending quite so much money on it.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Any insight, then, as to why WDW actually HAS a 5-diamond gourmet restaurant with no children's menu or other accommodation for children in the first place? They could always gut it and put in another character buffet.

Hopefully with chicken fingers.

Coz there aren't enough places serving chicken fingers at WDW... Right Matt?

Knox

 

[stellablue]

Vacationing with your children does NOT mean you have to be with them 24/7 (unless you want to be.)

Being a family-oriented destination does NOT mean that every place, activity, and meal MUST include infants and toddlers.

And Disney has not "banned children" from one of its restaurants, it has set a minimum age for dining there, just as it sets minimum and maximum ages for the childrens' clubs and pirate cruises, and for spa treatments at the Grand Floridian, and just as it sets minimum heights for many attractions.

Nobody here is going to WDW "expecting to never encounter a disruptive child." In fact, we all expect a lot of child-related noise in most parts of WDW. All we want is a few non-bar or club places where we can escape the noise for a while with a nice meal and some tranquil grown-up conversation. Personally, I'd like to see 2 or 3 restaurants put a minimum age requirement on, so that I can have such a tranquil vacation experience without spending quite so much money on it.

I agree with you completely

 

[raidermatt]

Why are parents calling those of us who do not wish to put up with misbehaving children- child haters etc, however, I am certain, they would NOT want to tolerate a "drunken" "disorderly" or "annoying" adult while dining- or anywhere else for that matter - to me it is the same thing, no one wants to deal with either.

I have read several posts about the F&W getting out of control with drink adults misbehaving in front of children- so that is OK to complain about- but we CF people can't also want a moments peace in the parks and enjoy ourselves b/c we are do not have children in tow?

an excellent analogy!
(& btw, we're not CF )

Of course no one wants to deal with either. But do you wish to dine with no adults around because you witnessed some who were unruly?

That's where the analogy falls apart. The unruly are not being banned, the entire population is because some may have been unruly. Though based on Disney's comments, it hasn't been a problem at all at V&A's. They are simply doing it for marketing reasons.

Again, though, as long as this stays confined to V&A's, it means next to nothing from a practical matter.

That said, the Disney dress code for the signature restaurants (except V&A's) is not much of a practical problem either, yet there are constantly people who are confused by it. Certainly there will be some who don't get the whole story with this and will be confused by where kids are banned and what ages.

It makes the less informed, who still FAR outnumber the informed people who are active on boards like this, question what they can and cannot do, and where. Even the people who are members of the disboards, who I'm sure fall into the upper percentages when it comes to being informed about Disney, often have questions about the dress code.

Just something to think about.


So, when will we have the first post asking if they can sneak their 9-year old into V&A's, or will they ask for a birth certificate?

 

[raidermatt]

Being a family-oriented destination does NOT mean that every place, activity, and meal MUST include infants and toddlers.

Of course it doesn't, but it also doesn't meant their MUST be an experience that fits all types of families.

And let's be realistic here. Watch any Disney commercial and you are going to see hordes of little kids. Certainly "family" can be defined in many ways, but Disney is primarily going after families with young children, for obvious reasons, and that's the majority of who is visiting.

That's what makes a decision to restrict those families at least questionable. Not necessarily wrong, but at least debateable.

So it comes down to what makes sense for the business as a whole. Clearly Disney thinks the answer is to put in the age requirement, but that doesn't mean they are correct. After all, they could just as quickly reverse the policy at some point, and I'm sure those who support the decision now would not be happy about it then.

Sort of like when Disney changed the dress code in signature restaurants to allow t-shirts. Many said Disney was smart for banning them, but were they still smart for changing their mind?

 

[AladdinsPrincess]

I am absolutely thrilled that they've instituted this policy and will be sure to make my first reservation there this year and mention that this is why.

 

[TDC Nala]

I haven't the slightest idea why it's a questionable policy to say children under 10 can't go to Victoria & Alberts. Because there are a lot of children at WDW? How many of them want to go to Victoria & Alberts?

Not any more than to say that adults can't go on the pirate cruise. Adults cant even go with their kids. I am sure there are many more adults that would like to go on the pirate cruise with the kids, than kids who would like to go to V&A with their parents.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

V&A's lost a star? Wow, where have I been?

No, V&A has not lost its Fifth Diamond. The current AAA Florida Tourbook (valid through November 2008) on Page 838 still shows V&A with Five Diamonds.

However; you may remember that until a few years back all the servers had nametags of either Victoria or Albert, no matter what their actual name. About two years after they got their first Five Diamond award the people from AAA mentioned to them that the concept was a bit "hokey"; they got the hint and decided to change that policy to keep the Five Diamond award. This action may have been in response to a suggestion or comment from an AAA inspector, or AAA itself.

 

[WillCAD]

Of course it doesn't, but it also doesn't meant their MUST be an experience that fits all types of families.

And let's be realistic here. Watch any Disney commercial and you are going to see hordes of little kids. Certainly "family" can be defined in many ways, but Disney is primarily going after families with young children, for obvious reasons, and that's the majority of who is visiting.

That's what makes a decision to restrict those families at least questionable. Not necessarily wrong, but at least debateable.

So it comes down to what makes sense for the business as a whole. Clearly Disney thinks the answer is to put in the age requirement, but that doesn't mean they are correct. After all, they could just as quickly reverse the policy at some point, and I'm sure those who support the decision now would not be happy about it then.

Sort of like when Disney changed the dress code in signature restaurants to allow t-shirts. Many said Disney was smart for banning them, but were they still smart for changing their mind?

Since we're being realistic, let's examine what WDW is.

WDW is a comprehensive vacation complex containing accomodations, activities, recreation, entertainment, shopping, and dining. It's bigger than the island of Manhattan, and after 36 years in operation, it's developed land has expanded to many times its original size, and added far more choices to all of those categories than it originally had.

Originally, the Magic Kingdom was all there was. Later, more parks, more resorts, more shopping, and more dining options were added, along with golf courses, water parks, a sports complex, a race course, and even a major time share organization.

Why is it so questionable or debatable that, with all of this physical expansion, Disney has also expanded its target audience beyond the "mom, dad, and 2.3 kids" demographic to include non-traditional families and childless people?

People keep using variations of the old "Disney is meant for FAMLIES" argument, as though they mean, "And everybody else better just stay away if they don't like it!" Well, maybe Disney WAS meant for traditional families when Disneyland opened in 1955, but this ain't 1955 any more, and the Disney parks and resorts today are designed for a lot more than just Mom, Dad, and 2.3 kids.

 

[uva185]

I saw this on Fox News this afternoon. First off I cannot believe this is actually national news

I have dined at V&A and I support their decision to ban children under 10 years old. I don't think anyone who has not been to V&A has a right to criticize this policy. The restaurant is very upscale and even the loud noises / conversation that is normal for a child to make can ruin the peaceful atmosphere created by the harpist's soft music. Those of you who have dined here know what I am talking about. This is not about how well a child can behave because even if a parent thinks their child is "well behaved" it still may be inappropriate behavior for a 5* restaurant. Disney wants to maintain a 5* atmosphere and they have a right to do so.

Furthermore since at most 2-3 families with children would dine at V&A per month not too many families will be disrupted by this policy. I think it is a definite possibility Disney enacted this policy to stop requests for a child's menu or child's pricing from guests who happen to frequent the restaurant with children.

I think V&A has gained a lot of beneficial publicity from this since the media continuously refers to it as the finest restaurant in Central Florida. I can see more couples looking into dining there after seeing the news stories.

One final question, out of all the parents who are complaining about the age restriction at V&A (not any other signature restaurant....just V&A) how many times have you taken your children under 10 here? I don't mean any "planned trips" either. Something tells me the number will be low.

 

[Uncleromulus]

Probably so low as to be statistically insignificant.

 

[bicker]

And let's be realistic here. Watch any Disney commercial and you are going to see hordes of little kids.

The point was made earlier that that simply isn't the case. The advertising seems to be a little light on children. I suspect because most families with children already know that it is a good place to visit with children, so more of the advertising is geared towards families without children.

Certainly "family" can be defined in many ways, but Disney is primarily going after families with young children, for obvious reasons, and that's the majority of who is visiting.

Majority? Do you have numbers to support that contention? It is probably correct, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that at least certain months during the year, you're actually mistaken. Regardless, a majority does not a totality make. Disney is apparently taking steps to accommodate more directly that percentage of families without children visiting where age differentiation matters.

So it comes down to what makes sense for the business as a whole. Clearly Disney thinks the answer is to put in the age requirement, but that doesn't mean they are correct.

It also doesn't mean they're incorrect. Who should get the benefit of the doubt? Experts or non-experts? Answer: Experts.

 

[bicker]

No, V&A has not lost its Fifth Diamond.

PlutoLuvr mentioned stars, not diamonds. Who knows why they don't have a star? The nature of their patrons could be one reason why.

 

[raidermatt]

Why is it so questionable or debatable that, with all of this physical expansion, Disney has also expanded its target audience beyond the "mom, dad, and 2.3 kids" demographic to include non-traditional families and childless people?

I never said expanding the target audience was bad. Since no more than 2 or 3 families PER MONTH took young children to V&A's, they obviously have expanded their target audience in this case. The ban doesn't change it.

What is debateable is the idea that actually instituting the ban is a good idea. As is clear from the long discussions on this board and others, it does bother some.

Further, until 6 days ago, the ban didn't exist, so apparently it isn't exactly a no-brainer.

People keep using variations of the old "Disney is meant for FAMLIES" argument, as though they mean, "And everybody else better just stay away if they don't like it!" Well, maybe Disney WAS meant for traditional families when Disneyland opened in 1955, but this ain't 1955 any more, and the Disney parks and resorts today are designed for a lot more than just Mom, Dad, and 2.3 kids.

Maybe some use the argument to say "everybody else better just stay away", but I never said anything like that.

"Traditional" families as you call them are still the bread and butter of Disney's business. Of course they are not 100% of Disney's business, but they are by far the biggest component. That's why every commercial is filled with cute little kids. It's why there are character meals continuing to pop-up all over the place. It's why we are seeing more and more characters and character-driven attractions in places like Epcot and Tomorrowland.

Please note that I am not saying these are all good moves. I'm only pointing out that they are Disney's chosen response to its primary audience.

Therefore any decision that might alienate or confuse that primary audience is at least debateable. Not necessarily a bad decision, but questionable. There's a difference. And again, if it weren't questionable, Disney would have done it long ago.

Also, the lack of a ban did not make V&A's any less of an "adult experience". With 0-3 young children in their PER MONTH, virtually nobody was being negatively impacted in the first place. It already was virtually an adult-only experience by virtue of its atmosphere and price.

 

[Uncleromulus]

And yet we read from the press release that the move was made due to "GUESTS request".
So all I can read into that is that the little tykes (when they came) were bothering somebody, that V&A probably always wanted to be adults only in the first place, and the "complaints" gave them a reason to make the move.

 

[raidermatt]

The point was made earlier that that simply isn't the case. The advertising seems to be a little light on children. I suspect because most families with children already know that it is a good place to visit with children, so more of the advertising is geared towards families without children.

Yet the WDW commercial running here lately features a family of four who discover they can afford a WDW vacation. Same commercial that was featured a year ago.

Disney's marketing isn't really about educating families with children that WDW is a good place for them. You are correct that most know this. It's focused on convincing those familes to actually book the trip, rather than book to Hawaii, Europe, Yellowstone, D.C., or any other destination that is competing for family vacation dollars.

Disney cannot afford to take that group for granted because there is plenty of competition out there. Hence that is the focus of the majority of their marketing. Not all of course, but the majority.

Regardless, a majority does not a totality make. Disney is apparently taking steps to accommodate more directly that percentage of families without children visiting where age differentiation matters.

Not really. As pointed out, this is one move, and it has virtually no practical impact on the actual guest experience. It's a marketing move to put forth a certain image for a single restaurant. Looking at WDW as a whole, there are actually more and more things being shifted to appeal to young children. Even the already very basic signature restaurant dress code was relaxed further last year. Pleasure Island is more accesable to young children than ever.

No, this move is more of an island than a trend. Certainly it will encourage some who don't want to see a child in V&A's, but again, as is clear from the various discussions on the subject, not all Disney guests feel that way. Hence the debate over its merit.

It also doesn't mean they're incorrect. Who should get the benefit of the doubt? Experts or non-experts? Answer: Experts.

I never said it was incorrect. Really, all I've done is point out that it's not the cut and dried decision many make it out to be, and the potential is there for it to backfire. I'm not saying it WILL backfire, or that they didn't make the right call.

As for just saying it's the right move simply because they made it, I've said many times before that isn't good enough for me. Just as all of the posters who wanted Disney to make this move earlier didn't "trust the experts" then.

But as I pointed out above, if we look at the moves the "experts" have made, this isn't any kind of trend towards greater offerings to any adult demographic.

 

[raidermatt]

And yet we read from the press release that the move was made due to "GUESTS request".
So all I can read into that is that the little tykes (when they came) were bothering somebody, that V&A probably always wanted to be adults only in the first place, and the "complaints" gave them a reason to make the move.

Sure, I don't doubt that some guests made the request.

But that doesn't automatically make it the right move. We've seen those surveys and complaints cited before for moves that turned out to be reversed.

 

[bicker]

Yet the WDW commercial running here lately features a family of four who discover they can afford a WDW vacation. Same commercial that was featured a year ago.

That's not the only advertising they do, Matt. That's the point.

Disney cannot afford to take that group for granted because there is plenty of competition out there.

Absolutely. Disney cannot afford to take either group for granted: Families with children OR families without children.

No, this move is more of an island than a trend.

If it makes you feel better to think so. My main concern is the comments I've read from people expressing a sense of entitlement, i.e., that WDW should be, basically, all about them instead of what it really is, a place that services many different kinds of guests, and each one according to how much they're willing to pay for what they want.

 

[jrmasm]

It always makes me laugh how what the other guy wants is a 'sense of entitlement'!!

 

[3DisneyKids]

It will surely not mean the downfall of this civization its just a trendsetting for the future.
" No kids allowed" reminds me of no Jude's allowed and that is just something so many young American soldiers died for.

Who will we kick out next?

As someone who lost grandparents in the holocaust, this is offensive on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. I respectfully request that you refrain from this type of analogy. It is wholly inappropriate, no...it's disgusting. Please stop.