Would you like a smaller portion with that?

[Uncleromulus]

I like the idea of "sized" choices and price accordingly (as in Katiebells example). I can get the large Filet, while Mrs U can get the smallest. We each finish our portion and are "full". We see that sort of thing at some of our local restaurants as well. It works great with things like steak and prime rib, but I don't see it too often with anything else.
Disney menus are --I think--very "slim" in what they offer. I doubt they will ever expand to include that sort of pricing ladder. It ALMOST seems they are trying to make whatever they have fit on just one page...

 

[bicker]

And how much more are you willing to pay (for whatever size you choose) given that more choice == greater value, and greater value == higher prices?

 

[Mackey Mouse]

Personally, I prefer quality over quantity and would pay for that privilege. Probably the reason I avoid the restaurants where they push out huge quantity but have very little taste.

I wonder if Disney would consider the smaller quantity for less money thing.....it seems to me that if I am having a meal and request no potatos with it or no salad, they do not discount my meal as I have eliminated a portion of the meal...Interesting question...

 

[bicker]

I wonder if Disney would consider the smaller quantity for less money thing.....it seems to me that if I am having a meal and request no potatos with it or no salad, they do not discount my meal as I have eliminated a portion of the meal...Interesting question...

Exactly. Leaving stuff off doesn't save the restaurant much. Their aim is making profit, and serving less profitable options doesn't sound like it would be in their best interest. Figure if there is (just making up numbers here) $5 of profit associated with a patron occupying a seat in the restaurant for an hour during the busy time of the day, every alternative option people would rather see must provide at least that much profit, or it would be irresponsible for them to make the change to that alternative.

So it isn't just a matter of balancing cost with price -- that only keeps the percentage of profit at the same level -- but they also have to keep the amount of profit made at the same level. That means that if they go towards smaller portions, they cannot go as far towards lower prices (or much at all, really) because they would have to price the smaller portion with a higher profit margin to maintain the same amount of profit.

 

[Disneyhappy]

Prior to the DDP, I think the issue of sharing only applied to less than 1% of people dining at WDW restaurants. DH and I were in that 1% for some TS meals, depending on how hungry we were. Since the implementation of the DDP, I would still venture a guess that the total % is no more than 5%. We were just at WDW last week and I tried to make a conscious note of tables that were sharing and I did not see any. (I know, not very scientific!) I guess my point is that with such a small % of people sharing, I am not sure how big of an issue it is for WDW to address. It do not see it a s big of an issue as using child credits for adults. That was a very big issue for WDW and they did address it. We heard rumors of them addressing for almost a year before they were able to implement the system upgrades to correct it. I imagine a plate sharing fee may be next in line if this actually is a big issue for WDW. Presently, I would be surprised if that happens but if there is an increase in people trying to save credits by sharing, we may just see that plate fee. In that case, I will pay the plate fee when DH and I want to share, gripe a little bit about the DDP being responsible, and move on. Some changes are good and some are not.

I do not like the idea of WDW serving smaller portions size and not lowering their prices accordingly. (Although the majority of WDW guests would not even notice as they are not frequent visitors.) My biggest gripe is the general decline in quality. It is not totally consistent across the board but in our 10 trips since the implementation of the DDP, I have definitely noticed a difference in quality of food (this includes the standardization of the menu) and service. It is just not the same experience for us. But like I said before, some things change for the better and some for the worse. Last week for the first time in 10 years (accept when staying at Universal) we drove offsite for a meal to Roys. DH now wants to eat off-site more often and doesn't want to get the DDP for our August trip. (I already have the DDP and ADRs planned for August so I am hoping to change his mind by agreeing that on our shorter trips without the DDP we can eat offsite more often.) Is our going offsite going to hurt Disney? Not in the least as they are not having any problems filling up their restaurants. Nor are we trying to hurt Disney. Our family’s expectations and wants are just being met differently than before.

Interesting thread, Bicker. Sorry for going off on different tangent!

 

[bicker]

Prior to the DDP, I think the issue of sharing only applied to less than 1% of people dining at WDW restaurants. DH and I were in that 1% for some TS meals, depending on how hungry we were. Since the implementation of the DDP, I would still venture a guess that the total % is no more than 5%.

Interesting if true. I don't doubt it and if true that 500% increase in sharing really would explain a lot about why things are becoming the way they are. While I don't consider sharing "abuse" this could qualify as yet-another example of a portion of the customers behaving in an abnormal manner driving Disney to change, curtail or eliminate services. (There's a thread out there with a really long list of such instances.)

I guess my point is that with such a small % of people sharing, I am not sure how big of an issue it is for WDW to address.

A 500% increase is significant. Also 5% is significant. Beyond that, "address" is somewhat vague: They can "address" something (1) by prohibiting it, (2) by prohibiting it and enforcing the prohibition, or (3) by changing their offerings to provide less incentive for it. #3 is the least invasive. It bypasses a lot of the PR problems associated with asking or demanding guests to comply with things.

It do not see it a s big of an issue as using child credits for adults.

Indeed. That was a HUMONGOUS problem. Everything in this realm will pale by comparison.

I imagine a plate sharing fee may be next in line if this actually is a big issue for WDW.

Or just more portion size reductions.

I do not like the idea of WDW serving smaller portions size and not lowering their prices accordingly.

Again, your perception of "accordingly" and the mathematical result of what is "accordingly" may differ. I suspect that the amount that menu prices should decrease in response to portion size reductions would be about the same as foregoing this and the next typical inflationary price increase. So they can just leave prices alone for a year or two or three, reducing portion sizes to address the issue. However, that's all kind of illusory, since prices just reflect value anyway. I am not convinced that guests -- as a group -- will actually value meals any less with smaller portions (at least not anymore).

My biggest gripe is the general decline in quality.

Also customer-driven. Disney will do whatever we reward them the most for.

Is our going offsite going to hurt Disney? Not in the least as they are not having any problems filling up their restaurants.

Exactly.

Interesting thread, Bicker. Sorry for going off on different tangent!

Tangents are good. Most threads are repetitive after the first few messages. Tangents keep them fresh.

 

[Mackey Mouse]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Disneyhappy
My biggest gripe is the general decline in quality. "

"Also customer-driven. Disney will do whatever we reward them the most for."

Very good point made by Bicker...If we continue to patronize these restaurants that are not serving quality food, Disney will continue to put out that quality food. In essence, we are saying by eating there that it is ok to serve that quality. It is not ok and if more people go off property to eat and maybe follow up with a letter to WDW, you would think Disney would step up the plate and make some improvements... One can hope and I do know they read these boards.....so this is a good discussion for them to read.

 

[bicker]

Talk is cheap, though. DisneyHappy said, "Is our going offsite going to hurt Disney? Not in the least as they are not having any problems filling up their restaurants." Indeed, one of the biggest complaints about Disney dining these days is that it is so hard to get accommodated at a sit-down restaurant at the last minute, because they're all full all the time now. That indicates that guests are voting very very strongly in favor of the changes, not against. Evidently, only a small number of us would really prefer higher quality at higher prices.

 

[taximomfor4]

Yeah, okay, that's what I expected, and it really just won't work, because I don't think customers at WDW will ever come to accept the differential between changes in portion sizes and the appropriate changes in price (i.e., a 16 oz steak = $25.00; an 8 oz steak = $20.25; a 4 oz steak = $17.88; a 2 oz steak = $16.69).

I like this one!! I'd get the 4 oz. (I don't care if I only save a dollar or 2 for taking a smaller portion...but I wouldn't like paying the same price for a smaller portion.)

But in the end, we will probably just not do so many TS meals. No DDP for us, we do better ducking into snack/CS places and eating lightly throughout the day. We will enjoy local restaurants throughout the year. WDW restaurants haven't truly WOWed me, anyway, especially the past couple of years.

 

[TxRabbit]

Tangents are good. Most threads are repetitive after the first few messages. Tangents keep them fresh.

Here's one: When I went to college, way back when , there were different meal plans offered to students. They were called: light eater, moderate eater, and heavy eater. Figuring out how to regulate the thing would represent something of a challenge, but it would be interesting to talk about a similar plan instituted whereby a light eater would get an entree and a beverage, a moderate eater could have entree, beverage, and choice of dessert or appetizer, and a heavy eater would get the full ride. This could translate into some very real savings if Disney reduced the cost per day of the DDP based on what you would have the option of ordering.

 

[Lewisc]

Look at Bicker's previous posts regarding both profit margin and dollar profits per guest.

The only "real" savings would come from the actual savings in the cost of the food. My guess is the average savings from dropping dessert and appetizer isn't much more than $1-$3 total.

A light eater plan would have to drop the TS meal in favor of 2 CS meals in order to have any real savings.

College cafeterias don't have the overhead or profit requirements as Disney. My guess is much greater percentage of the cost winds up going to the cost of the food ingrediants then with "real" restaurants.

Here's one: When I went to college, way back when , there were different meal plans offered to students. They were called: light eater, moderate eater, and heavy eater. Figuring out how to regulate the thing would represent something of a challenge, but it would be interesting to talk about a similar plan instituted whereby a light eater would get an entree and a beverage, a moderate eater could have entree, beverage, and choice of dessert or appetizer, and a heavy eater would get the full ride. This could translate into some very real savings if Disney reduced the cost per day of the DDP based on what you would have the option of ordering.

 

[bicker]

Here's one: When I went to college, way back when , there were different meal plans offered to students.

Interesting -- when I went to college there was only one. The food service even got the administration to ban cooking in the dorms, so they could force everyone onto the one food plan. (Only international students were able to get exempted from the new policy.)

Perhaps the difference was that my university was about 50 miles from civilization!

This could translate into some very real savings if Disney reduced the cost per day of the DDP based on what you would have the option of ordering.

Except, their objective is to maximize the total profit, long-term, not either give or even receive cost savings.

 

[Katiebell]

It is an intriguing idea though...and Disney sort of does that already, with the Silver and Platinum plans, although they include a lot more than just meals.

There are a lot of reasons people might want to share on the Dining Plan.

One group wants to maximize their credits, and have more TS meals. That group is probably most likely to end up with unused TS credits at the end of their trip, because it would be exhausting to try to keep reservations for 2 different TS meals every single day; it would leave you with very little time to enjoy the parks or attractions.

Another group is trying to bank credits to experience Signature Dining or dinner shows which require 2 TS credits -- and they don't want to pay OOP for any meals to make up for it.

Another group wants to share with children in their family because they feel the kids' choices are unappealing or inadequate, and the adults are getting too much food anyway.

Another group is more concerned about portion control, or ending up with so much food that a lot is wasted. There have been quite a few threads about whether or not wasting food is "wrong", but after those conversations I thought of another thing: wasting food makes the customer feel like they have wasted money. Just seeing a half-eaten entree, or a dessert that was barely touched leaves you with a feeling like you have paid for more than you should have -- even though it's just one TS credit. And yes, you can skip ordering some of the courses, but then again, you feel like you've paid for them already, so you've wasted your money. If a couple of light eaters share a larger meal, they both get to try the three courses, no food is wasted, and they don't feel absolutely stuffed when they leave the restaurant. So again, it's the customer's perception that they haven't spent their money unwisely.

I would love it if they took just a few dollars off the dining plan and dropped the CS dessert (just entree/beverage or combo/beverage) and the TS meal was entree/appetizer OR dessert/beverage. Then DH could order an appetizer with his meal, and I could order dessert, we could share those two items (like we normally would), and each have our own entree. Maybe if the plan was revamped, or this option was at least offered, fewer people would feel they need to share credits. More people would be interested in the plan and not feel that it is just too much food, they'd never order that much OOP so it's a waste of money. AND it would solve the issue of the SF gelatin for the kids' meals -- no dessert with a CS meal anymore -- gotta use your snack credit!