Rant: The DDP is ruining everything!

[yaksack]

We just got back Sunday from a week long vaca at the VWL. I thought the food at all restaurants wasn't as good as it was in June 2004 when we went last. The only exception was the Whispering Canyon for dinner, it was still as greasy and good as I remember.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Yep and they only do fireworks in New York on Independence Day and New Years Eve. Just because New York only does something for a one week period doesn't mean WDW couldn't do it every day.

Well, if ya wanna be that way about it...
Magic Kingdom restaurants could offer the $25 prix-fixe DDP meal every day, except when preempted by special hard-ticketed events or inclement weather;
Epcot could do it in three bursts approximately five minutes long each (again, weather permitting);
MGM could offer it twice a year, on Independence Day and New Year's Eve;
And Animal Kingdom, even after the table service restaurants open there, would be exempt because, well, they NEVER have fireworks

 

[kaytieeldr]

When traveling in Europe it seemed to be a common practice in many restaurants to have several levels of prix fixe menus where the customer could order app, main and dessert based on how much they wanted to spend. This solutions sounds like it could be a compromise to those who feel the DDP is dragging down the quality of the food. It allows the restaurant to keep a la carte items on the menu for those who hate the DDP and a set menu for people like myself from other countries to know in advance how much something costs without going through the headache of trying to translate food costs into your own currency. I guess that's why all-inclusive resorts are so popular. And based on my previous dining experiences at WDW (many moons ago) I never even considered WDW to be a destination to experience fine dining but I guess I was wrong!

Interesting proposal, but how would you market and sell it? Seriously.
Just for example, Disney offers the Candlelight Processional Dinner Package at Christmas, and the Fantasmic! Dining Package year-round at MGM.

These do both have 'tiers', but based solely on the restaurant of choice, not the actual food ordered Plus, these are generally one-shot deals; all other days, the Guests who book one or both of these packages dine a la carte.

Now, WE all plan well in advance where, and often even what, we're going to eat. Millions of people don't. Can you imagine the confusion, and possible anger/outrage:
. . . "For $38.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta entree, each night of your package"
. . . "For $42.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta or chicken entree, each night of your package"
. . . "For $46.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta, chicken, or fish entree, each night of your package"
. . . "For $51.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta, chicken, fish, or beef entree, each night of your package"
Then you'll (well, 'you' as in 'Disney') will have Guests complaining about overpaying on the night they just want spaghetti but they paid for the 'with beef' plan.

It's an excellent idea in theory, and it would likely work if the Disney Dining Plan didn't exist, but...

 

[m_kasch]

Every single guest that walks into Disney, at any time deserves the best experience - whether it is their 100th, or their 1st time. That's why I get upset about this - not that I deserve more because I've gone so much, but because I have so much of myself invested in Disney. My desk at work, my home, my vacation plans, even my future wedding plans are invested in Disney and I expect it to be as wonderful as it always used to be. I want everything there to be as perfect and magical when I one day take my family there, as it was when my parents took me. I never want it to lose quality - whether in rides, or shows, or atmosphere or food or anything else.=QUOTE]

Lulu -- I totally agree with you. I also have a lot invested in Disney, my future plans, hopes to take my children to a wonderful place someday. And it ISN'T the same as it used to be. But people who have never been there before don't know that, because they don't have anything to compare it to. I went to an all-inclusive in Jamaica with my Mom and Sister a few years ago and they thought it was awesome. I had been to an all-inclusive before that where it was much nicer, so I was disappointed. That is the difference. Even though they didn't realize it, they were missing out too.

Now, I don't think that Disney should treat repeat guests better just because they go there more often, but they DO need to realize that there ARE people out there who recognize all the changes that are going on for the worse. Shrinking menus/portion sizes, inability to get reservations, and things like that. But it is so frustrating for me because when you talk to them about it they seem to just not care, and that isn't right either. The should care about ALL of us and realize that we all have different needs. They seem to know that first timers or people who visit occasionally have different needs, and are right now catering to them, which is fine. But, hopefully, one day, they will be able to differentiate and make more people happy. I'm sure it isn't fun for them to recieve ranting emails from ANYONE (not that I would ever complain... ), even if they know that I will still be back regardless.

I love Disney World, and hope to keep going back several times a year for a long time to come. I just hope that (soon) they will start trying to make more groups of people happy, rather than concentrating on just one or two groups like it seems they are now. And I wish that people would see that, just because they were never there before so the didn't experience the fine dining experience that DW has been, they are missing out too!! They should be just as upset as we are, because they should want it to be as good as it used to be, so that they could experience that wonderful part too!!

 

[Lewisc]

Disney could just run it similar to the V&A menu. Guest who want to order specific menu items would have to pay an up charge. Limiting the number of menu items to a few signature items, lobster for example, would sound fair to most of us BUT a number of guests would think Disney was pulling a bait and switch. I'd have a real problem if the DDP menu became chicken, chopped steak (hamburger) and pasta with everything else having an up charge. Disney has decided it isn't worth the aggrevation to offer a few menu items with up charges. Disney would rather just move "foodies" up to a different restaurant category. Signature restaurants for most customers and V&A for those few guests willing to pay $$$ for the best food. I'm sure Disney could pull one of the signature restaurants out of the plan and position it between the signature restaurants and V&A but I'm not sure how many guests would be willing to pay $75 (after discounts) for a meal.

Disney cares about all their guests. They still have V&A and they made the signature restaurants 2 credits so the menu changes are minimal. I'm sure Disney would pull a signature restaurant off the plan if they thought there was enough demand.

Interesting proposal, but how would you market and sell it? Seriously.
Just for example, Disney offers the Candlelight Processional Dinner Package at Christmas, and the Fantasmic! Dining Package year-round at MGM.

These do both have 'tiers', but based solely on the restaurant of choice, not the actual food ordered Plus, these are generally one-shot deals; all other days, the Guests who book one or both of these packages dine a la carte.

Now, WE all plan well in advance where, and often even what, we're going to eat. Millions of people don't. Can you imagine the confusion, and possible anger/outrage:
. . . "For $38.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta entree, each night of your package"
. . . "For $42.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta or chicken entree, each night of your package"
. . . "For $46.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta, chicken, or fish entree, each night of your package"
. . . "For $51.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta, chicken, fish, or beef entree, each night of your package"
Then you'll (well, 'you' as in 'Disney') will have Guests complaining about overpaying on the night they just want spaghetti but they paid for the 'with beef' plan.

It's an excellent idea in theory, and it would likely work if the Disney Dining Plan didn't exist, but...

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Great post m_Kasch!

 

[PlutoLuvr]

Interesting proposal, but how would you market and sell it? Seriously.
Just for example, Disney offers the Candlelight Processional Dinner Package at Christmas, and the Fantasmic! Dining Package year-round at MGM.

These do both have 'tiers', but based solely on the restaurant of choice, not the actual food ordered Plus, these are generally one-shot deals; all other days, the Guests who book one or both of these packages dine a la carte.

Now, WE all plan well in advance where, and often even what, we're going to eat. Millions of people don't. Can you imagine the confusion, and possible anger/outrage:
. . . "For $38.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta entree, each night of your package"
. . . "For $42.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta or chicken entree, each night of your package"
. . . "For $46.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta, chicken, or fish entree, each night of your package"
. . . "For $51.99, you get one snack, one Counter Service meal, and one Table Service meal at which you get any pasta, chicken, fish, or beef entree, each night of your package"
Then you'll (well, 'you' as in 'Disney') will have Guests complaining about overpaying on the night they just want spaghetti but they paid for the 'with beef' plan.

It's an excellent idea in theory, and it would likely work if the Disney Dining Plan didn't exist, but...

Aww, come on now. It really wouldn't be as difficult as you just outlined. And I seriously doubt millions would be outraged/angered.

My in-laws and our family met at an Applebee's a couple months ago (two seniors, three small children, four 30-somethings). The waitress handed all of us a menu, but also pointed out their current "special," a little card on the table for a meal-deal of sorts. For the deal, you got an appetizer, entree and a dessert for a fixed amount (I don't remember the amount -- half of our party opted to do it, but DH & I didn't). There were a few appetizers to pick from, a few entrees and a few desserts. This worked out perfect for the picky eaters and/or not starving in our group, and for those of us that wanted a little something more elaborate, we opted not to go with the plan.

No one was outraged, and none of us knew about this plan when we walked in. The decision for the individuals in our group was not a difficult or complicated one. A few of us felt like filet, which was not on the list for the deal, and no appetizer -- fine, we didn't go with the plan. A few others felt like a big chicken salad or a burger with an appetizer and a dessert -- great, they went with the plan.

Everyone was satisfied, enjoyed their meals, and Applebee's had a packed restaurant.

I mean, WDW gives its guests a card like the one at Applebee's when it comes to buying park tix. It takes us a couple minutes every year standing at the ticket window to figure out what kind of ticket would best suit our needs for that trip depending on length of stay, budget, other things we might like to do on our trip besides WDW and how soon we might be returning. Sure, I see a ten-day park hopper, but opt for a FL resident seasonal pass. I'm certainly not outraged because the family in front of me or behind me might have a different idea of what's right for their family's needs and budgets.

WDW could very easily implement something similar with its dining.

 

[TinkerbellMama]

I have to wage the war on fat every darn day of my life - at LEAST we should be able to go on VACATION and eat like a real person instead of some anorexic wannabe!

I had no idea I am raising an anorexic wannabe because I don't choose to serve my child hydrogenated, fried crap (on a stick!)...even on vacation! Hmmm. At any rate, I really like the DDP and the new, healthier menu choices for children.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Now, I don't think that Disney should treat repeat guests better just because they go there more often, but they DO need to realize that there ARE people out there who recognize all the changes that are going on for the worse.

Excellent observation... but even WE keep coming back.
Repeat visitors see the changes, are likely disappointed in the change, but continue to be, well, repeat visitors. And even if the regulars cut back, or even stop entirely, Disney's attendance figures continue to increase.

Disney would rather just move "foodies" up to a different restaurant category. Signature restaurants for most customers and V&A for those few guests willing to pay $$$ for the best food. I'm sure Disney could pull one of the signature restaurants out of the plan and position it between the signature restaurants and V&A but I'm not sure how many guests would be willing to pay $75 (after discounts) for a meal.

Hmm, that gives me an idea. Know what I'd like? No? Nobody here can read my mind? Okay, fine: A Signature restaurant version of the Disney Dining Plan. Pay more, sure, but each venue would require the use of one Table Service credit. Guests could still use the credits at single-credit restaurants, but it'd still cost one credit per diner, no rebates, no extras.

No one was outraged, and none of us knew about this plan when we walked in.

Ah, and that's the difference. You didn't plan this meal six months in advance; you didn't pay in full for it over six weeks before you got to Applebee's.

 

[Lewisc]

Disney offers such a plan. You actually get 3 meals a day. CS, TS or signature. The plan includes recreational activities. The plan isn't cheap.

Offering a food only version of that plan might appeal to some guests but it might be too pricey. A TS credit is currently valued at $26 so just changing the plan to avoid paying 2 credit restaurant would raise the daily cost to around $65. That type of plan might increase the % of dining guests at the signature restaurants. That might actually contribute to further cut backs.

Hmm, that gives me an idea. Know what I'd like? No? Nobody here can read my mind? Okay, fine: A Signature restaurant version of the Disney Dining Plan. Pay more, sure, but each venue would require the use of one Table Service credit. Guests could still use the credits at single-credit restaurants, but it'd still cost one credit per diner, no rebates, no extras.


Ah, and that's the difference. You didn't plan this meal six months in advance; you didn't pay in full for it over six weeks before you got to Applebee's.

 

[saschab]

I mean, WDW gives its guests a card like the one at Applebee's when it comes to buying park tix. It takes us a couple minutes every year standing at the ticket window to figure out what kind of ticket would best suit our needs for that trip depending on length of stay, budget, other things we might like to do on our trip besides WDW and how soon we might be returning. Sure, I see a ten-day park hopper, but opt for a FL resident seasonal pass. I'm certainly not outraged because the family in front of me or behind me might have a different idea of what's right for their family's needs and budgets.

WDW could very easily implement something similar with its dining.

I agree. We have tiered resorts, tiered ticket options, tiered packages like Platinum. There should be no problem with choice, as long as it is clearly defined and advertised/marketed by Disney.

Don't know that it will happen, but done right, it is no different than the other choices Disney offers. Different options for different price points.

Not to the exteme of katieelder's example. I'll just assume she exaggerated to make a point. But a more realistic plan that as others have posted, exist in practice elsewhere.

 

[m_kasch]

Oops -- double post!!

 

[kvogel11202]

I had no idea I am raising an anorexic wannabe because I don't choose to serve my child hydrogenated, fried crap (on a stick!)...even on vacation! Hmmm. At any rate, I really like the DDP and the new, healthier menu choices for children.

Rock on Tinkerbellmama....We just got back, had at least one- sometimes 2 TS meals a day (yes we were on DDP- still worked out for us) and we had wonderful meals each time- my kids liked the new menu and event he older ones a couple times got food off the kids menu. Healthy options are a good thing. And they didn't have the same meal every night, nor did they complain about the quality of the food.

 

[m_kasch]

Excellent observation... but even WE keep coming back.
Repeat visitors see the changes, are likely disappointed in the change, but continue to be, well, repeat visitors. And even if the regulars cut back, or even stop entirely, Disney's attendance figures continue to increase.

I wasn't saying that I was going to stop coming back, or that most people would. We LOVE Disney, and won't give up on it that easily. But I DO think that they should realize that people ARE noticing the changes are aren't happy about it. Not that they care, but they should. They are in the service industry, and should want to make their customers, whether first timers or someone who's been there 2 million times, happy. You should enjoy it EVERY time, not just your first time. And if they keep cutting back, it makes it not UNenjoyable, or even less enjoyable, more like not increased enjoyability (is that a word?? ) during future trips, which is what we used to look forward to and what they should be aiming for. Would anyone get anywhere if they didn't keep trying to make themselves better? They seem to by trying!!

But don't get me wrong, I am still obsessed with disney and will continue to go as long as I have a good time. But I hope that they don't make it so that I don't enjoy it by ruining everything we have grown to love about it. Does that make sense?

 

[kaytieeldr]

Disney offers such a plan. You actually get 3 meals a day. CS, TS or signature. The plan includes recreational activities. The plan isn't cheap.

Well, yeah, that's the thing. I'm willing to pay more, but not THAT much more
I mean, that'd work if I was going to spend just one day in a park (MGM, for the Brown Derby), but I don't eat three full meals a day. I'd have to be spending most of my time outside the parks, dining and recreating... which is not such a bad goal...

Not to the exteme of katieelder's example. I'll just assume she exaggerated to make a point.

Yes, I did. SEVERELY. Thanks for realizing that

 

[saschab]

Well, yeah, that's the thing. I'm willing to pay more, but not THAT much more

Yet some people are. And I don't begrudge them their choice to do so. We all have personal ideas of value to dollar. Some folks spend bazillions on pin trading, others say they're not paying 11 bucks on a piece of tin! To each his own!

I realize you were exaggerating, katieelder, but I'm not sure why. I haven't seen anyone here ask for the exaggerated example, so I'm not sure where the example fits into the argument.

Several posters have suggested practical applications to tiered dining in the real world. It's one thing to say, "Nope, I don't like it". It's another thing to tear away their argument using an exaggerated one.

I have no issue with you not liking the ideas put forth. That's simple, I'll respect your choice. But I'm not fond of this method of taking it to a ridiculous level to make it seem illogical/irrational. Doesn't work that way in my book.

 

[Lewisc]

Disney already has tiered pricing for dining.

We have a couple of table service restaurants such as Beaches and Cream that are relatively inexpensive. Many dining guests pay cash.

We have the one credit restaurants, two credit restaurants and finally V&A. A few restaurants don't participate with the dining plan and offer dining experiences that are, in some cases, better than the signature restaurants. blueZoo, Bistro, Fulton's for example.

kaytieeldr suggestion of multiple pricing for the dining plan based on entrée selection. Although this sounds like an exaggeration but it's no more an exaggeration than having a menu with a lot of up-charges. Giving dining guests a limited menu would make the plan a lot less attractive to market.

Tiering between the categories of restaurants but not within a restaurant is a good compromise. Customers that want better food just have to move up to the category of restaurants that offer the dining experience they're looking for. The only category that's missing is $75 (after discounts). Disney would drop and then improve one of the signature restaurants if they thought that market was large enough.

Several posters have suggested practical applications to tiered dining in the real world. It's one thing to say, "Nope, I don't like it". It's another thing to tear away their argument using an exaggerated one.

I have no issue with you not liking the ideas put forth. That's simple, I'll respect your choice. But I'm not fond of this method of taking it to a ridiculous level to make it seem illogical/irrational. Doesn't work that way in my book.

 

[saschab]

Disney already has tiered pricing for dining.

We have a couple of table service restaurants such as Beaches and Cream that are relatively inexpensive. Many dining guests pay cash.

We have the one credit restaurants, two credit restaurants and finally V&A. A few restaurants don't participate with the dining plan and offer dining experiences that are, in some cases, better than the signature restaurants. blueZoo, Bistro, Fulton's for example.

Okay, I'm with you so far. All true, I agree.

We had dinner at BlueZoo last week and it was fabulous. We ended up with a bill not too much more than it would have cost OOP for the meal we had another night at California Grill. The portions were more plentiful, the quality of ingredients superior. One of the best meals I've had in ages.

kaytieeldr suggestion of multiple pricing for the dining plan based on entrée selection. Although this sounds like an exaggeration but it's no more an exaggeration than having a menu with a lot of up-charges.

Well, actually, katieeldr did say it was an exaggeration for affect. And I'm not asking for "a lot" of up-charge options. Maybe a few appetizers and entrees. Again, I think the DDP is okay for what it is, but it is a standardization in practice, and that has effect on choice. Disney no longer can up the price when ingredients get costly, it has to make some cuts to make the DDP margin. Disney will give us a bit of a bargain, but they're not giving away the house.

Giving dining guests a limited menu would make the plan a lot less attractive to market.

I never suggested limiting the menu. Leave it as it is now. Just add some options, whether it be up-charge or tier DDP. If you mean that people won't like it; I'd repeat the argument about resort and ticket tiers. If people will begrudge others because one pays for a value resort and the one pays for a deluxe, then there are deeper issues there than the value of the DDP. JMHO.

Tiering between the categories of restaurants but not within a restaurant is a good compromise. Customers that want better food just have to move up to the category of restaurants that offer the dining experience they're looking for. The only category that's missing is $75 (after discounts). Disney would drop and then improve one of the signature restaurants if they thought that market was large enough.

I agree, this would be another option. But would one be enough?

And I would think that folks would be more concerned about this "supposed elitism" in that configuration. As in, "Look, here's a restaurant I'm not allowed to be in" versus "I can go into this restaurant and choose my price point." (I'm talking maybe 2 tiers, not 5). When we pay OOP we choose what we're willing to pay for an entree according to our own sense of personal value.

So, we have somethings we agree on. I just think we have different needs, different priorities, and different ways of thinking about it.

Of course, none of this really matters. Disney's going to do what's best for Disney. I think it had more of an impact, positive and negative, than they realized. I'm guessing they're evaluating as we speak, will continue to do so, and will make decisions according to their priorities. Time will tell...

 

[kaytieeldr]

Several posters have suggested practical applications to tiered dining in the real world. It's one thing to say, "Nope, I don't like it". It's another thing to tear away their argument using an exaggerated one.

I have no issue with you not liking the ideas put forth. That's simple, I'll respect your choice. But I'm not fond of this method of taking it to a ridiculous level to make it seem illogical/irrational. Doesn't work that way in my book.

Ouch. With all due respect, what works in your book doesn't affect how or what I post. "Nope, I don't like it" is an interesting response, but it doesn't represent the point I wish to make, exaggerated or not. Just as other posters have put forth their ideas, suggestions, and views, I did the same. Yes, my example was exaggerated, but illogical/irrational? No - using extreme examples makes my thinking apparent to readers.

 

[saschab]

Ouch. With all due respect, what works in your book doesn't affect how or what I post. "Nope, I don't like it" is an interesting response, but it doesn't represent the point I wish to make, exaggerated or not. Just as other posters have put forth their ideas, suggestions, and views, I did the same. Yes, my example was exaggerated, but illogical/irrational? No - using extreme examples makes my thinking apparent to readers.

Kaytieeldr, I think you've misunderstood my intent.
I have no desire to affect what or how you post.

I never implied that your example was illogical/irrational. I stated that you used an exaggerated example (to which you agreed) to make to point that my idea was illogical/irrational. Make sense?

But now I'm a little confused. I saw your example as a way to make your thinking quite apparent...I believed it was apparent that you disagreed with my idea, but this statement confuses me:

"Nope, I don't like it" is an interesting response, but it doesn't represent the point I wish to make, exaggerated or not.

If it doesn't represent you viewpoint, that of it not suiting you, then you do like it?

It really doesn't matter anyway. We all have our own viewpoints. And the final decision will be Disney's. It's all static. They will do what suits their needs best. But I'm betting this isn't written in stone yet, and down the line there will be some sort of adaption. JMHO.

Enjoy your evening.