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

[bicker]

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

Anytime someone wants something not explicitly promised, it is a reflection of a sense of entitlement.

 

[pperfectmom]

I have never been to V & A's, but, believe me, if DH and I ever scrape up enough money I definately would not want my own perfectly behaved, impeccably mannered(insert hysterical laugh here ) children along, let alone someone else's darlings. So I think the decision was a good one and that there should be some places off limits to young children. For the record, my kids are fairly well behaved but I could not expect them to sit still for a several hour meal without getting a little antsy. I would never even expect them to try.

 

[disneyfav4ever]

It's why there are character meals continuing to pop-up all over the place.

Those aren't just for kids though. I have gone to almost every character meal on property, and I'm a single adult!

 

[raidermatt]

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

I realize it's not all they do, but it is what touches the most people.

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

Of course not. But you did say they didn't focus on families w/ children in their advertising because the families already knew WDW was a good place for children.

As there is plenty of competition for the family vacation dollar, that would be taking that group for granted.

Which is why Disney's advertising still focuses on that group. Not solely, but primarily. That was the point.

It doesn't. Where did you get that from?

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.

I never said, hinted or implied that anyone was entitled to anything.

But if entitlement is your target, I'm sure you are equally concerned about those who think they are entitled to an adults-only restaurant at WDW.

 

[raidermatt]

Anytime someone wants something not explicitly promised, it is a reflection of a sense of entitlement.

Ah, well then as I said, it's good to know you are equally concerned about those who want an adults-only restaurant at WDW.

 

[WillCAD]

But if entitlement is your target, I'm sure you are equally concerned about those who think they are entitled to an adults-only restaurant at WDW.

I can't speak for everyone, but I for one don't believe that we're "entitled" to an adults-only restaurant at WDW.

I have long wished that they had such a place.

Now that they have one, I have applauded the decision.

I wish there were more such places at WDW.

But I never said, thought, or implied that I, or anyone else for that matter, was entitled to such a place.

 

[Charlesaway]

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

Did you happen to catch the part where the 'pro-family' woman said that anyone without children who go to WDW are 'weird'? As one half of a couple who have tried very hard to have children for 11 years, yet enjoy anything Disney immensely, I found that more than a bit insulting.

The anchor made a couple of good points, and I for one agree that making the restaurant 'adults' only is a great move. It was obviously not taken lightly by Disney, and they are definitely marketing to their target audience. Really, is anyone going to stop visiting WDW because they can't take their toddlers into V&A? I doubt it. There are still 70+ other restaurants available, plus babysitting services, throughout the resort.

 

[Dicecatt]

I skipped most of this thread, but this just reminded me about something funny. You know how at Teppanyaki you are seated with other people? Well, in September of 2006 our kids were 11, 7, 7, and 17 months. The 6 of us were put with a party of three...a couple and their adult daughter (in her 20s). We all had a great time, we enjoyed their company, and towards the end of the meal they admitted to us (I could see it on their faces anyway) that when they saw us, they dreaded the meal...but were so happy that we are such a nice, pleasant family with kids that aren't crazy. It was such an enjoyable time.

Having said that, I also greatly enjoy adult only meals. I think that Disney should be able to put whatever policies they'd like for their restaurants, and considering that a lot of families consist of 2 people, retired people, maybe adult daughter and mother, perhaps a group of friends...Disney is just being smart, giving adults that like to travel more options, therefore hoping that adults that like a little adult time will choose Disney, knowing they can have relaxation and quiet as part of their Disney experience.

I have FOUR kids, and I'm all for adults having quiet sanctuaries at Disney. Why not? Not all families have young kids.

 

[TommyTutone]

"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.

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.

At least one person has mentioned that their party of four had their dinner tarnished by a rambunctious toddler there.

And even if 99% of Disney business is designed for families with kids, that is wonderful since 99% (well, 96/97) of Disney restaurants welcome children of any age.

 

[raidermatt]

I can't speak for everyone, but I for one don't believe that we're "entitled" to an adults-only restaurant at WDW.

I have long wished that they had such a place.

Now that they have one, I have applauded the decision.

I wish there were more such places at WDW.

But I never said, thought, or implied that I, or anyone else for that matter, was entitled to such a place.

Well, by our friend Mr. bicker's definition, yes, anyone who wants V&A's to be child free is exhibiting a sense of entitlement. Likewise, so is anyone who wants to bring their children there. Since neither group has been explicity promised what they want, all fall into that definition of entitlement.

But simply wanting something not promised is not a good reflecter of a sense of entitlement. Entitlement requires a belief that one SHOULD get something, and by that definition, no WillCAD, I wouldn't say what you've said is indication you believe you are entitled to an adults-only V&A.

Likewise, I have no belief that I am entitled to a V&A's that allows all children. In fact, as a personal preference, I really don't care as I have no desire to go to V&A's anyway. In fact, this actually helps me because now if anybody in my traveling party wants to go there, I can easily get out of it since neither of my children would be allowed.

I've just been trying, admittedly with spotty success, to discuss the issue on its marketing and customer experience merits.

 

[raidermatt]

Sorry, duplicate post.

 

[WillCAD]

I've just been trying, admittedly with spotty success, to discuss the issue on its marketing and customer experience merits.

Okay, from a marketing standpoint, if Disney is trying to expand its appeal beyond traditional families to childless couples, empty-nesters, groups of child-free friends, and solo travellers, then having limited areas of adults-only activities, entertainment, and dining is not only a good marketing move, but an absolute must.

From a customer experience standpoint, when comparing the various V&A stories in this thread, I get the impression that those who ate there while toddlers were running amok had unsatisfying customer experiences, while those who ate there when there were no children running amok in the restaurant had satisfying customer exeriences. In other words, if Choice A results 90% customer satisfaction, and Choice B results in 95%, go with Choice B. Although 100% is not a realistically acheivable goal, the closer you get to it, the better.

It's simple - the number of people who WANT it is greater than the number of people who DON'T want it.

 

[WillCAD]

Oops, duplicate post.

 

[robinb]

I am getting to this conversation late as I was in WDW when it started . I have always been in favor of having at least one "adult only" restaurant at WDW and I am very happy that Disney made the change. I have been to V&A's a few times and even saw a baby there once. Thank goodness s/he was asleep! Unlike the baby who cried and cried and cried for at least 45 minutes at Narcoossee's last Thursday. Our family of three ate a $225 meal with a screaming baby in the background. So relaxing!

The fact is, there are some times that I do not want to eat with children no matter how well behaved. One person's definition of "well behaved" may not be everyone's defintion of "well behaved". Thank goodness for V&A's and the DDE card .

 

[_queenie_]

I think this whole thing with V&As is going to far. If only two or three families with children a month go there, is this really effecting that many people? I don't even like prix fixe menus myself, so I wouldn't take my kids somewhere like that.

However, the thing I don't like is if they were to do this at other restaurants. We like spending time with our children and taking them out to eat, as I have said before, and usually go to a sig restaurant every night. They can definately handle the experience, and we wouldn't do that if they couldn't. I understand many people travel to WDW w/out children, and my DH and I had been going together once year, for about 6 years, before we had kids. I know those of you who say that they should do more restaurants like that are just looking to have a nice meal fairly affordably, but like I have said before, I wouldn't mind seeing people getting kicked out (and that goes for everyone noisy), or at least given some kind of warning. I hate to see the people with children vs. the people without. I've been in both situations and have learned that either parties can be equally annoying.

I realize I have repeated a lot of what I have said in my previous posts, but I believe this pretty much summarizes it all.

 

[duketennisgal]

I don't have children, but I can remember being 7 or 8 years old and I know that if my parents had taken me to a place like that (a 3 hour fancy meal) when I could be out enjoying the parks or at places like Prime Time or Sci Fi eating dinner I would think they were punishing me.

I don't see why it's a bad thing that children under 10 aren't allowed to be at V&As when I would think that it's torture for the children to be there in the first place.

 

[mrhodes418]

My husband and I are thinking about giong to V&A for our 5th anniversary dinner this April. That said, we have two small kids (3yo and 1.5yo), if I don't want to take my kids there why the heck do I want someone else's children there? Yes, I realize some children are very well behaved and wouldn't bother anyone, but can any parent GUARANTEE that. No! There are adults I wouldn't take to V&A because I don't think they would behave very well. There is a time and place for everything and to those who have their noses out of joint over something that is common sense, there are plenty of other restaurants out there.

 

[robinb]

If only two or three families with children a month go there, is this really effecting that many people?

I can't remember how many tables there are at V&A's but you have to remember that every table is spending $300 or more to be there for a relaxing meal. While I usually don't mind what other people are doing around me I would rather not drop $300 on a romantic dinner for two and have it interrupted by a whiny child or even worry about when the currently well behaved 6-year old will lose it. I also don't want to worry about when my own 8-year old might get fed up with the whole thing.

I have been to every Signature Restaurant with my DD and she is now well behaved. That wasn't always the case and she spent many a dinner in a Kids Club, LOL. She even watched me eat a whole Maine lobster last week at Narcoossee's without making too much of a fuss (she's a vegetarian). Even so, Victoria and Albert's is not an appropriate place for her. Even if she behaves well. Even if her pallet develops past "pasta with the sauce on the side". Even I am rich enough to spend $125 on her dinner.

I am very glad that V&A has this rule, but I am also glad that the Signature restaurants still welcome children. I can enjoy an adult-only meal if I wish or watch my DD carefully spoon just the right amount of red sauce onto her pasta.

 

[2Princes2Princesses]

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.

But watch a Disney Cruise line commercial and see all those kids??? They are not allowed on a huge portion of one of the decks, in 1 of the restaurants, or on an entire beach on Castaway Cay.

The decision to make those restrictions seems to be working quite well for them.

BTW-in case you missed it earlier, I have 4 kids. I also have a strong conviction that a little adults only time in WDW for people who don't or people who do but hired a sitter is a GOOD thing (BTW-we don't get a sitter, we eat with our kids at non-signature meals).

Young kids cannot parasail or waterski at WDW either. They cannot ride in a Petty racecar with a parent. Yes, those are safety issues, as well, but I just don't think Disney is going to have to shut down if they offer adult night at a different sig restaurant each night. I think the alternating nights is a terrific idea.

I feel for those who don't have kids who support that idea. They are immediately labeled child haters and how dare they expect to go to WDW and not have kids around!

And as for the entitlement issue, isn't it also a sense of entitlement to think "I should be allowed to eat ANYWHERE at WDW WITH my toddler, no matter how it affects other people!!! If they don't want to be around kids, too bad. This is DISNEY! I AM ENTITLED to expose everyone to my kids all day and all night."

Maybe if the people with the psycho kids who cause problems would not think that way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion?

 

[bicker]

I realize it's not all they do, but it is what touches the most people.

It is also the most expensive form of advertising, and therefore that which warrants the must judicious use.

Of course not. But you did say they didn't focus on families w/ children in their advertising because the families already knew WDW was a good place for children.

See above.

As there is plenty of competition for the family vacation dollar, that would be taking that group for granted.

No it wouldn't be. There is no simply If not X Then not Y inference that can be drawn. It is a much more complex issue that that.

It doesn't. Where did you get that from?

I don't see any other explanation that makes sense to me.

But if entitlement is your target, I'm sure you are equally concerned about those who think they are entitled to an adults-only restaurant at WDW.

Who? What specifically. I've not been able to read every message, but all I've seen is people saying they're happy that WDW is providing one, and would like WDW to provide more.