No Longer Affordable JMHO

[Disney Dad Canada]

I'm not sure I agree. Disney isn't the 'real world'. It has a captive group of guests that need to eat and its onsite restaurants are more convenient than seeking out meals away from Disney property.
One has to wonder if it would be necessary to get up at 6 a.m. to make an ADR if there was no 'free' dining or DDPs and folks had to pay OOP for their meals.

Hypothetical questions don't really matter. Supply and demand does. As long as there are people not being able to make ADRs, there is no reason whatsoever to lower dining prices. It's basic free market, and is essential to keep the shareholders happy.

 

[cymbaldiva]

One has to wonder if it would be necessary to get up at 6 a.m. to make an ADR if there was no 'free' dining or DDPs and folks had to pay OOP for their meals.

Way back when - read as 94-00 - they weren't necessary. We'd just walk up to the restaurant, look at the menu, and if it looked appealing go in and eat. No priority seating, no ADRs, nothing.

I miss the 90s.

 

[gina2000]

Way back when - read as 94-00 - they weren't necessary. We'd just walk up to the restaurant, look at the menu, and if it looked appealing go in and eat. No priority seating, no ADRs, nothing.

I miss the 90s.

Absolutely true. The only place I remember having to vie for was California Grill because of the fireworks. And if you didn't care about fireworks it was easy. Menus were creative, food was well prepared, and pretty much every meal across the board was worth the price. People from the surrounding areas could call WDW dining and secure a reservation a few days in advance of their visit. If you read here regularly, most locals lament not being able to dine on the spur of the moment anymore.

I can totally understand why WDW instituted the latest dining plan. It filled sit down restaurants that were only partially full. The plan is well marketed and fits many peoples' budgets. Many out-of-pocket guests, however, don't see the value with higher prices and lower value.

WDW wanted a sure thing. They got it. That's smart marketing. I'm curious to know what percentage of their dinner guests are on the dining plan. I'm willing to bet it's a very substantial percentage at this point.

We love the parks but refuse to pay ridiculous prices for subpar food. We are spending our vacation dollars elsewhere...exactly what some posters are demanding that we do. But I won't be silent about the changes I've seen over the years....why should I be? I enjoy WDW but I won't rave about food that is ill prepared and expensive. Why should I pay Cadillac money and get a Kia? I won't do it in "real life" so why should I do it on vacation? There are too many fabulous vacation choices where I can have it all. Sorry if you don't agree. I'm just being a smart consumer.

Oh, and BTW, I wasn't referring to storefront immigrant joints when I mentioned ethnic food in big cities. The world is changing rapidly and most restauranteurs understand that ambiance and good food go together.....

 

[shalom]

If $10 per person per meal is not affordable for you, then you really need to re-think if WDW is where you should be vacationing.

I disagree with this line of thought. I got to talking to someone in the MK once, they'd clearly paid for their tickets, they were staying offsite in a condo IIRC, and they were not paying for meals onsite. They'd brought in sandwiches and chips and the like and ate them sitting on benches while people watching. I met them when I sat in a nearby bench to wait for my daughter.

Bringing lunch to the parks is not something I would want to do, but for them, it was working out just fine. They may have budgeted their vacation to the penny for all I know, but for them $10 per person per meal was "not affordable," but OTOH their Disney vacation was paid for before they went. They were there for the rides and for the kids to meet various characters and basically enjoying what mattered to them, but eating out just wasn't a priority. "Not affordable" can mean "no way can I dig up that much cash," but it can also mean "not important enough to me to budget it in."

I don't vacation places where I can't afford to eat out, but I know hubby totally could.

 

[Tiger926]

I disagree with this line of thought. I got to talking to someone in the MK once, they'd clearly paid for their tickets, they were staying offsite in a condo IIRC, and they were not paying for meals onsite. They'd brought in sandwiches and chips and the like and ate them sitting on benches while people watching. I met them when I sat in a nearby bench to wait for my daughter.

Bringing lunch to the parks is not something I would want to do, but for them, it was working out just fine. They may have budgeted their vacation to the penny for all I know, but for them $10 per person per meal was "not affordable," but OTOH their Disney vacation was paid for before they went. They were there for the rides and for the kids to meet various characters and basically enjoying what mattered to them, but eating out just wasn't a priority. "Not affordable" can mean "no way can I dig up that much cash," but it can also mean "not important enough to me to budget it in."

I don't vacation places where I can't afford to eat out, but I know hubby totally could.

I agree as well! There are so many people on these boards who feel that if people aren't dining with characters or eating at Signatures, then they cannot possibly enjoy, nor afford Disney. That is simply not a valid judgment.

We have done it all in terms of dining, and have spent thousands on Disney food. At this point, we are tired of that. We are DVC, so we have a full kitchen, and we enjoy preparing 2 meals per day, and eating out for the other one, as this fits our touring schedule, which always includes a midday break, as we go for 2 weeks each summer.

Just because people find the food expensive, it does not mean they cannot afford the food, nor does it mean they have to find another vacation spot. One does not have to eat a stitch of food on Disney property in order to enjoy a vacation there.

Tiger

 

[Stinky_Pete]

?..They were there for the rides and for the kids to meet various characters and basically enjoying what mattered to them, but eating out just wasn't a priority. "Not affordable" can mean "no way can I dig up that much cash," but it can also mean "not important enough to me to budget it in."

I agree as well! There are so many people on these boards who feel that if people aren't dining with characters or eating at Signatures, then they cannot possibly enjoy, nor afford Disney. That is simply not a valid judgment...

...Just because people find the food expensive, it does not mean they cannot afford the food, nor does it mean they have to find another vacation spot. One does not have to eat a stitch of food on Disney property in order to enjoy a vacation there.

Tiger

Thank you both for expressing my thoughts for me so well. Sometimes I can't believe the judgmental comments on the DIS. It is all too frequent that someone posts something like "if you don't spend money on the same things I do then you shouldn't go to WDW at all." We all are free to make our own choices. If I choose not to spend my money on something at WDW that is my own business, but It doesn't mean I shouldn't be there. Sounds a little elitist to me...

 

[Lionqueen2]

Absolutely true. The only place I remember having to vie for was California Grill because of the fireworks. And if you didn't care about fireworks it was easy. Menus were creative, food was well prepared, and pretty much every meal across the board was worth the price. People from the surrounding areas could call WDW dining and secure a reservation a few days in advance of their visit. If you read here regularly, most locals lament not being able to dine on the spur of the moment anymore.

I can totally understand why WDW instituted the latest dining plan. It filled sit down restaurants that were only partially full. The plan is well marketed and fits many peoples' budgets. Many out-of-pocket guests, however, don't see the value with higher prices and lower value.

WDW wanted a sure thing. They got it. That's smart marketing. I'm curious to know what percentage of their dinner guests are on the dining plan. I'm willing to bet it's a very substantial percentage at this point.

We love the parks but refuse to pay ridiculous prices for subpar food. We are spending our vacation dollars elsewhere...exactly what some posters are demanding that we do. But I won't be silent about the changes I've seen over the years....why should I be? I enjoy WDW but I won't rave about food that is ill prepared and expensive. Why should I pay Cadillac money and get a Kia? I won't do it in "real life" so why should I do it on vacation? There are too many fabulous vacation choices where I can have it all. Sorry if you don't agree. I'm just being a smart consumer.

Oh, and BTW, I wasn't referring to storefront immigrant joints when I mentioned ethnic food in big cities. The world is changing rapidly and most restauranteurs understand that ambiance and good food go together.....

So true! When I think of something 'expensive', I am comparing quality to cost. If the quality is lower than than the cost, it is expensive. While much of the food at Disney may be affordable to many who visit, the quality to cost issue makes it 'expensive'.

 

[shalom]

When I think of something 'expensive', I am comparing quality to cost. If the quality is lower than than the cost, it is expensive.

Ditto. As discussed earlier, there is a sense where Disney food "isn't too expensive" because they're filling their restaurants at this price. But it's too expensive for a lot of people, because to them it isn't worth what Disney is charging. People sometimes talk as if "ridiculously expensive" must be a value everyone holds in common -- in reality, it's something everyone defines for themselves.

Personally, I think most of the the Rice Krispie treats on site are much too expensive, because I prefer my Rice Krispie treats only an hour or two old, and I'm picky about my chocolate. OTOH, I'm good with their price for fried shrimp, because I never deep fat fry at home, and if I order right when they open, they're fresh-made and delicious. But If I got the shrimp at a buffet when it had been sitting in the bin for ten minutes, it would be too expensive - even if it was the exact same price.

 

[dislover8943]

We went for lunch and dinner and didn't like the food at all. We love the breakfast though

 

[isla bonita]

I agree as well! There are so many people on these boards who feel that if people aren't dining with characters or eating at Signatures, then they cannot possibly enjoy, nor afford Disney. That is simply not a valid judgment.

We have done it all in terms of dining, and have spent thousands on Disney food. At this point, we are tired of that. We are DVC, so we have a full kitchen, and we enjoy preparing 2 meals per day, and eating out for the other one, as this fits our touring schedule, which always includes a midday break, as we go for 2 weeks each summer.

Just because people find the food expensive, it does not mean they cannot afford the food, nor does it mean they have to find another vacation spot. One does not have to eat a stitch of food on Disney property in order to enjoy a vacation there.

Tiger

I can not agree more Tiger!

 

[bicker]

I gave my opinion as to what those chains charge for a 10 year old, my post in no way questions the reasoning of those who are willing or not willing to pay for those charges

So you're saying that there are no implications of what you say? Fair enough. I think that if you make a statement you own not only the statement but what it means, but that's just me.

Why should they? Enough people choose to pay for what they are getting now, so why should they change? You can choose to eat elsewhere if you like, but Disney charges what they do because people are willing to pay.

Precisely.

Doesnt mean that even people who love disney dont see a tipping point both in quality and affordability.

Of course, but the problem is how quickly some folks jump from their own personal disappointment at something they want costing more than they wanted and/or providing less than they wanted, to declaring a "tipping point" is being reached. Many of us have been discussing WDW online for a few decades, and have seen this happen a lot. The reality is closer to what Disney Dad Canada said: That patronage itself shows that WDW is nowhere near that point, and perhaps if we look hard enough we can see much clearer signs that things are actually heading in the opposite direction. However, to be clear, it's the difference between personal perception of those disappointed, and the reality.

It is important to note that there would be a lot less confusion if folks clearly expressed personal disappointment as personal disappointment rather than as something other than that. One's own personal disappointment doesn't indicate anything about anyone else nor about Disney's approach. It is only when that personal disappointment is so pervasive that we see empty restaurants all the time does it begin to indicate something broader.

 

[Lionqueen2]

Of course, but the problem is how quickly some folks jump from their own personal disappointment at something they want costing more than they wanted and/or providing less than they wanted, to declaring a "tipping point" is being reached. Many of us have been discussing WDW online for a few decades, and have seen this happen a lot. The reality is closer to what Disney Dad Canada said: That patronage itself shows that WDW is nowhere near that point, and perhaps if we look hard enough we can see much clearer signs that things are actually heading in the opposite direction. However, to be clear, it's the difference between personal perception of those disappointed, and the reality.

It is important to note that there would be a lot less confusion if folks clearly expressed personal disappointment as personal disappointment rather than as something other than that. One's own personal disappointment doesn't indicate anything about anyone else nor about Disney's approach. It is only when that personal disappointment is so pervasive that we see empty restaurants all the time does it begin to indicate something broader.

You are correct! However, empty restaurants at Disney is unlikely to happen as long as Disney has a 'captive' audience of guests who find it much more inconvenient to leave the property than pay the higher prices charged at Disney for their offerings. Food at Disney is not bad. It is simply overpriced for the quality.

 

[TisBit]

It is important to note that there would be a lot less confusion if folks clearly expressed personal disappointment as personal disappointment rather than as something other than that. One's own personal disappointment doesn't indicate anything about anyone else nor about Disney's approach. It is only when that personal disappointment is so pervasive that we see empty restaurants all the time does it begin to indicate something broader.

This is very true and why I usually try to see the other side of the coin when someone expresses some frustration/anger at Disney for something that THEY were disappointed in.

How many people complain that such and such character didn't do enough with their kid or maybe they didn't leave their kid alone when they were scared, etc. Often times, one persons complaint is another persons desire. Food quality does not always indicate a problem at a restaurant, because a single experience does not define a restaraunt, but as you said, when reservations fall off dramatically, it indicates that it was not a single experience, but rather a systematic problem.

 

[bicker]

I think you misunderstand the context of the word "captive" as most folks are using it in this thread. It indicates that while visiting a WDW theme park, there is a substantial barrier against choosing among an array of dining options owned by different companies competing with each other for the patrons' business, unfettered by federation agreements or other collusion (most notably, most being owned by the same company) to keep prices high.

The choice you're referring to is definitely real, but it is the choice with regard to what to do that specific day, on vacation. Once that choice is made, it closes off the options that people would have at, for example, a day on Daytona Beach.

 

[Lionqueen2]

"Captive" audience my a$$. No one is forcing people to wake up at 5:30AM 180 days out to make ADRs except the thousands of other people willing to do the same. No one is forcing people to do this or holding them "captive", and saying so is just making everyone out as people who cannot think for themselves.

Expensive? Yes. Overpriced, absolutely not at any restaurant I need an ADR for.

Sorry, but I disagree. As long as competitive outside dining options are so incovenient, guests at Disney are captive. For those without cars, it is very difficult to leave the property and dine elsewhere. For those with transportation, one has to weigh the the value of the time involved leaving their parks or resorts and returning against the additional cost of Disney restaurants. It is true that noone is being forced to go to Disney, but once there, outside options become difficult.

It is also interesting that prior to DDPs, Disney was not filling their restaurants and walk-up seating was easily available. The DDP is a brilliant move by Disney to fill their restaurants pricing the daily dining cost below the amount one might spent OOP, which makes folks think they are 'saving' money from over inflated prices and making ADRs 180 days out a necessity if one plans on eating something other than fast food for their entire stay in WDW.

Like many others, I still eat at Disney and pay Disney prices for convenience reasons, but don't feel that I am getting a 'special' dining experience. For that, I would go elsewhere.

 

[bicker]

Sorry, but I disagree. As long as competitive outside dining options are so incovenient, guests at Disney are captive.

As I mentioned above, I agree with this much.

For those without cars, it is very difficult to leave the property and dine elsewhere.

Even for folks with cars, it is sufficiently inconvenient so as to justify the use of the word "captive".

It is also interesting that prior to DDPs, Disney was not filling their restaurants and walk-up seating was easily available.

That's a gross generalization. There is no question that the DDP has had some significant positive impact on restaurant load levels, but it is not a black-and-white situation.

Beyond that, there have been other changes, some wrapped up within DDP or attributable to it, that separately have had significant impact on this. The clearest example of this is the change at Coral Reef from what it started out as, what we would now call a "Signature restaurant", to what it is now, a decent but not especially distinguished, mainstream-market restaurant.

Finally, even before the DDP, when restaurant load levels were lower, WDW still had and exploited its captive market regarding dining. WDW restaurant eating was overpriced as compared to your local restaurants (an apples-to-oranges comparison, for the reasons you and I have both outlined, specifically), because of the captive market situation, since the place opened.

 

[Disney Dad Canada]

Sorry, but I disagree. As long as competitive outside dining options are so incovenient, guests at Disney are captive. For those without cars, it is very difficult to leave the property and dine elsewhere. For those with transportation, one has to weigh the the value of the time involved leaving their parks or resorts and returning against the additional cost of Disney restaurants. It is true that noone is being forced to go to Disney, but once there, outside options become difficult.

It is also interesting that prior to DDPs, Disney was not filling their restaurants and walk-up seating was easily available. The DDP is a brilliant move by Disney to fill their restaurants pricing the daily dining cost below the amount one might spent OOP, which makes folks think they are 'saving' money from over inflated prices and making ADRs 180 days out a necessity if one plans on eating something other than fast food for their entire stay in WDW.

Like many others, I still eat at Disney and pay Disney prices for convenience reasons, but don't feel that I am getting a 'special' dining experience. For that, I would go elsewhere.

You still have a choice, even if is between one Disney restaurant and another. I go every year, stay on site and don't have a car, but it's still MY CHOICE where to eat. If enough people found a given restaurant was too expensive for what they are getting the prices would be cheaper. Even within an all Disney restaurant choice, it's still a choice.

 

[Kat&Dom]

We ate at several buffets from June 7 to 21. Our favorite hands down was Garden Grill at $38.99 pp. It cost an arm and a leg for 4 of us but the service and food was excellent.

I am glad to hear the Garden Grill was worth the money - we are going in November for my friend and her daughter's birthday! I was very excited to get a reservation here on Thanksgiving day!

I personally don't find the food prices at Disney to be that expensive compared to what we pay here in Alberta. I think depending on where you live and what the food prices are - you will either find Disney to be a bargain or expensive. For me, the price is very comparable to what I pay at home so I don't find Disney to be expensive.

However, when I eat out at any other restaurant in the States, I find it to be an incredible bargain - I can't believe how much food one gets and at such a cheap price so I do understand why the majority of posters find Disney prices expensive! It is totally relative to where you live and what the prices around you are.

 

[bicker]

You still have a choice, even if is between one Disney restaurant and another.

Disney versus Disney means that Disney still can impose the singular option of "their pricing" or no option. Since a company cannot be held liable for pricing collusion between its own two storefronts, it still counts a single supplier.

However, it is not even necessary for there to be only a single supplier. Captive markets are markets where the potential consumers face a severely limited amount of competitive suppliers, not necessarily just one. Even in cases where Disney allows other companies to operate restaurants, the associated agreements between Disney (especially participation in the Dining Plan) and their tenant constitute enough federation to make it a captive market situation.

While people still have choice - no one is questioning that - the structure of how things are makes it such that the prices are higher. There's nothing illegal or evil about that, but it is a reality that guests encounter and affects their budgets.

 

[maxiesmom]

Sorry, but I disagree. As long as competitive outside dining options are so incovenient, guests at Disney are captive. For those without cars, it is very difficult to leave the property and dine elsewhere. For those with transportation, one has to weigh the the value of the time involved leaving their parks or resorts and returning against the additional cost of Disney restaurants. It is true that noone is being forced to go to Disney, but once there, outside options become difficult.

It is also interesting that prior to DDPs, Disney was not filling their restaurants and walk-up seating was easily available. The DDP is a brilliant move by Disney to fill their restaurants pricing the daily dining cost below the amount one might spent OOP, which makes folks think they are 'saving' money from over inflated prices and making ADRs 180 days out a necessity if one plans on eating something other than fast food for their entire stay in WDW.

Like many others, I still eat at Disney and pay Disney prices for convenience reasons, but don't feel that I am getting a 'special' dining experience. For that, I would go elsewhere.

You are not taking into account that fact that you can bring food into the parks with you. It is pretty easy to pack a backpack full of food and stash it in a locker.

I would also say that people who choose to vacation at WDW are, for the most part, willing captives. I would be that most people would expect food at a theme park to be a bit on the expensive side. But at least Disney gives you the option of bringing food in with you, which many places do not.