With all the new changes to DDP, will non-participating restaurants lose business?

[bicker]

There is no need, or advantage, to panicking.

Good advice. Even if things stay as they are, there is really no advantage to panicking. And the reality is that there is surely a chance that any of the restaurants will be back on the Dining Plan.

BUT I think the new changes may cause DDP to lose some customers. Without those restaurants the plan is no longer a slam dunk.

I'm not sure the impact will be quite so significant.

 

[Mom of Sleepy Bashful and BabyDoc]

I think some of those restaurants will be hurt, to some extent, especially Maya Grill, Tangierine Cafe, Marrakesh, Biergarten, Nine Dragons, San Angel Inn, and Teppanyaki.

Am I missing something? I see Biergarten on the brochure for lunch and dinner................

http://adisneyworld.disney.go.com/m...ts/07Dining.pdf

sorry, link isn't working. But it's on this thread; http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1187766

 

[bicker]

Am I missing something?

Nope, it's just my aging eyes, Mom. Biergarten is definitely on the list. I had thought it was definitely a Disney-owned restaurant... that make so much more sense no.

I'll correct my message.

 

[Mom of Sleepy Bashful and BabyDoc]

Well, if it goes down this way, that's just one more reason for us not to get the dining plan. We'll stick with the DDE and just eat less! HA!! There's a thought for someone like me who's dieting......

 

[JimMIA]

I think at least some of the restaurants will wind up participating.

BUT I think the new changes may cause DDP to lose some customers. Without those restaurants the plan is no longer a slam dunk. Without the plan I'd skip dessert with most CS meals. I'd probably share or skip appetizers and/or dessert.

Oh, I agree. If this is the final list of restaurants, we'll pay OOP and eat mostly offsite. But I don't think this is the final lineup. I hope not.

 

[bluejasmine]

I sure hope the list will change because while so far I have always gotten the plan for free, I was planning on paying for it the next trip because its defanitely worth it for my family but not with all the changes. They took several of my fave CS places off and a few TS that we liked. What good is the plan if you have to eat somewhere you dont want to? My family will go back to almost all CS and maybe one to two TS per trip..

Did I already say how HAPPY I am that I can still enjoy the original DDP atleast one last time before the changes?

 

[Mom of Sleepy Bashful and BabyDoc]

Nope, it's just my aging eyes, Mom. Biergarten is definitely on the list. I had thought it was definitely a Disney-owned restaurant... that make so much more sense no.

I'll correct my message.

No problem, Bicker. That's just one of my new fav's, that's why I noticed it.

Boy, it's hard figuring out what is Disney owned or not Disney owned. It's interesting, though.

You know, I just have that old idea in my head that if you give people a good product at a good price(and good service), their going to go for it.

I certainly hope that holds true for those other restaurants. I would hate to see any of those restaurants be hurt by this...........dining at Disney is so unique. It's part of the draw for us.

 

[bicker]

You know, I just have that old idea in my head that if you give people a good product at a good price(and good service), their going to go for it.

Gosh, I wish the world was still like that. I used to be a management consultant -- I used to teach Phil Crosby's "Quality is Free" philosophy. How mortifying it was for us in the industry when we came to the realization that it just was not the case -- that there really is a point beyond which higher levels of quality work against the objective of a business enterprise. What's encouraging, though, is that we can expect, at least, a fair level of value, quality, service, etc., it not our ideal.

 

[Pedler]

Gosh, I wish the world was still like that. I used to be a management consultant -- I used to teach Phil Crosby's "Quality is Free" philosophy. How mortifying it was for us in the industry when we came to the realization that it just was not the case -- that there really is a point beyond which higher levels of quality work against the objective of a business enterprise. What's encouraging, though, is that we can expect, at least, a fair level of value, quality, service, etc., it not our ideal.

As the saying goes...Superior Marketing will beat a superior product almost every time.

Or as someone once told me:

Sales is petty theft, Marketing is organized crime.

 

[Brian Noble]

On a realted note: a serial entrepreneur who had gotten his doctorate from my alma mater came back to give a talk about tech start-ups every four years or so.

His major piont? There is a reason that the business people all get more equity than the technology people. Namely: the plan is more important than the product.

 

[DMKEDM]

What good news to hear that some of the "missing restaurants" may come back into the DDP! Our particular favorites were not listed on the 2007 plan and we'd been feeling sad--and conflicted about whether to use DDP in 2007.

For us, DDP is a great deal. We use our TS meals at dinner and almost always "spend" within a dollar or two of the cost of the the whole DDP per day...to us it feels like getting a daily CS meal and snack for free!

But it IS a lot of food. We probably wouldn't eat that much if it weren't prepaid and discounted.

And we also don't like "locking in" meal choices way in advance...but we've solved that by making lists of where we think we'll want to go, choosing, and then making our priority seating calls before we leave home (thank heavens for that habit--just yesterday I booked our dinners for our T-giving trip, and already both California Grill and Le Cellier were fully booked at our preferred times). Then, when we arrive, if we feel like something different on a particular day we just call Disney Dining and see if we can make a change. Most of the time we can; sometimes we can't. But it's nice to have a "guarantee" of a priority seating reservation ... sort of a "back-up" type plan.

We've been to WDW twice on the DDP so far (third trip this coming November; jury's still out on whether we'll use it for our 2007 trip)...I think it's one of the best deals Disney offers. Psychologically, I love having the cost of food already paid for when we arrive. Actually, we get what feels to us like "more than our money's worth." But it's so good that while I'm sad about the possibility that our favorite Epcot (and Downtown Disney) eateries will not participate, I find myself thinking "well, it really was too good to be true."

We're going w/friends in January...we've got a "planning dinner" coming up next week to go over restaurant lists and choices to decide whether we'll use the DDP or not...we'll be at WDW for five nights (five TS meals!); I've done a "preliminary look" and I know there are considerably more than five restaurants we all like still on the list of participants...but whether we'll want to give up planning to go to our favorites (restrict ourselves to the DDP choices) remains to be seen.

One really good thing about DDP: we have all the way up to the day before we leave to decide. It's nice that Disney doesn't make you choose whether to do DDP or not at the time you book...

 

[Lewisc]

I think we can exclude your third point. EoS was supplying food that was within $.50 of what Disney was paying them. EoS was actually paid less if a guest used a AAA discount.

I can't imagine Disney wants to market the dining plan with almost nothing at DTD,the restaurants from the WS missing and nothing at CSR. It's not realistic to expect non Disney owned restaurants would be willing to continue to provide $70 worth of food for a $25 reimbursement. Also not reasonable to expect the Pepper Market will continue to provide a $25+++ meal for $8-$10. Originally PM limited desserts, in recognition of the more expensive entrée offerings but they're not even doing that. I don't know if the restaurants want more $$$ or the ability to exclude some items. Add on guests sharing one meal and the problem is compounded.

I'll go with your second point. When the plan was first introduced restaurants were added after the fact. The restaurants may be trying to figure out if separating the credits into child and adult will help or hurt them. Disney needs to get the package released now so they can sell it for 2007. Disney can always add restaurants later.

There could be a few different reasons they are not listed as being on the plan:

First Disney could have pulled them out of it decided that they were better off doing it for just Disney Owned Places. It also makes some places more available for non Dinning plan patrons.

Second is that Disney may be renegotiating the T & C's of the contract and it wasn't done in time to get the brochure out. This does appear to be historically late for package sales to take this long to appear so that may be what held it up. If that's the case you may see some more places added one that takes place.

Third it may be that all of these places decided to go it alone without the dinning plan. I have always said that the dinning plan puts the non Disney owned places between a rock and a hard place. They get the low reimbursement of the dinning plan in exchange for more business but they also loose out on higher paying customers that the dinning plan may squeeze out and they get none of the other benefits of increased spending on souvenieers or higher occupancy rates.

 

[MommyPoppins]

In my case the non-participating restaurants won't loose my business but Disney will in the way of not purchasing the Dining plan.

I agree. We won't even go for "Free dining" if they offer it again. We'll just take our AP rate rooms and cheapo FL Res Seasonal passes, and eat at CS and a couple TS with the DDE card. Less money for disney. I think it's a stupid idea to cut all those Epcot restaurants. They're practically the only ones worth going to in the first place!

 

[DisOrBust]

hese changes go into effect for 2007 correct???

 

[bicker]

hese changes go into effect for 2007 correct???

As far as we know. However, please be aware that such changes could be applied in 2006, if Disney wished to, without providing much more noticed to guests than a new brochure at check-in. That probably won't happen, but it could.

 

[Lewisc]

As far as we know. However, please be aware that such changes could be applied in 2006, if Disney wished to, without providing much more noticed to guests than a new brochure at check-in. That probably won't happen, but it could.

Anything is possible but most of us think the restaurants have an agreement with Disney to accept MYW Dining guests. Most of us think the agreement expires 12/31/06.

We're not sure if Disney is negotating with the restaurants. A meal at a restaurant like Chefs De France can cost as much as HDD which requires 2 credits. What may be needed is to create a 1.5 credit restaurant or possibly allow a $10 surcharge for a few non-Disney restaurants.

 

[bicker]

Why wouldn't they just go all the way and make these restaurants 2TS (again)? Both Disney and the restaurant gets something out of that: Disney can list the extra restaurants as participating, and the restaurants get double the reimbursement.

 

[Lewisc]

Why wouldn't they just go all the way and make these restaurants 2TS (again)? Both Disney and the restaurant gets something out of that: Disney can list the extra restaurants as participating, and the restaurants get double the reimbursement.

Those restaurants were never 2 credits. Chefs wasn't packed even at one credit. Too many guests would skip those restaurants at 2 credits. Disney would get to show the restaurants as participating but the restaurants wouldn't get much business.

It might work if Coral Reef and Le Cellier also went to 2 credit but that doesn't seem to be happening.

I think the restaurants could make money, even if guests don't order adult beverages, if they're allowed to produce a representative fixed price menu. Increase revenue by eliminating sharing. Although it wouldn't produce huge savings portion size could be reduced. Posters say the portions are large enough to share. Reduce the portions, possibly offer seconds if an occasional guests has a large appetite. What would an extra serving of pasta cost?

I suspect the restaurants will blink and wind up just having to drop the expensive items from the menu. Disney, and guests, don't seem to want restrictions.

 

[bicker]

Chefs wasn't packed even at one credit. Too many guests might skip those restaurants at 2 credits. Disney gets to show the restaurant as participating but the restaurants wouldn't get much business.

And the business they do get will be at a price they're willing to business at. How is that any worse, for either Disney or the restaurant, than either the current (2006) situation with those restaurants as 1TS, or the projected (2007) situation with those restaurants as non-participating? My point is that it is a win-win, for Disney and the restaurant. Each gets something out of making them all 2TS.

I think the restaurants could make money, even if guests don't order adult beverages, if they're allowed to produce a representative fixed price menu.

That should be unacceptable to Disney as it is clear that their customers don't want restrictions like that. It is better to say, "Order whatever you want from the regular menu," than "Some restaurants restrict you to a limited menu." There is no up-side for Disney there.

Increase revenue by eliminating sharing.

Oh yes, that'll go over well.

Although it wouldn't produce huge savings portion size could be reduced.

You're right about it not producing huge savings -- rather it would be a very marginal amount of savings.

I suspect the restaurants will blink and wind up just having to drop the expensive items from the menu.

That's assuming that Disney really wants to help their competition. There needs to be enough in it for Disney. Practically-speaking, normal guests (i.e., guests other than those on online forums) will not hold it against Disney if these restaurants are charging them 2TS, so Disney really has no reason to budge here.

 

[Pedler]

Why wouldn't they just go all the way and make these restaurants 2TS (again)? Both Disney and the restaurant gets something out of that: Disney can list the extra restaurants as participating, and the restaurants get double the reimbursement.

I have a feeling that they wouldn't get many takers at 2 TS credits. I can't imagine paying that for Alfredo's and such. It just isn't on par with the other signature restaurants.

I think that the plan really is a tough proposition for the non Disney owned places. Remember that Disney doesn't need to make money on the plan on food itself at the restaurants they own. It could break even and still come out ahead with all of the other benefits. The fact that they have offered it free demonstrates that.

The non Disney owned places on the other hand have to make it on the receipts at the register. Disney has really put them in a tough bind. They can take the plan and take Disney's fixed amount of reimbursement. That probably reduces their profitability per patron meaning that they make significantly less money per DDP patron than non DDP patron. The other option is to not take the dinning plan and have a decent sized part of the potential customers be on the dinning plan and not want to eat at their restaurant. I would imagine this is particularly true when Disney offers the free dinning. Then they have a much smaller pool of potential customers meaning less revenue to spread the fixed costs over. Any way you slice it I would guess that they are making less profit overall since the DDP came into effect.

My take on it is that most likely they are still negotiating the contracts for the non Disney owned places but need to get information out to start selling packages now thus the exclusion of these places. As time moves on I would think they will start to be added to the plan. They may not like it but Disney really has them in a bind.