Things not going well with the DDP changes

[Kurby]

I don't think Disney ever claimed they were losing money with the Dining Plan; it's just that this way, they increase their profits. BIG difference.

ok it wasn't Disney persay but it was the reporter who said
"From what I hear, the Disney Dining Plan was actually causing WDW Food Service to lose money. That the sheer number of additional patrons who were being served discounted meals every day meant that Disney World's 60+ table-service restaurants were now working much harder to earn far less. Which is why Disney World managers then insisted that the Dining Plan had to be changed for 2008. So that Food Service could then begin to benefit from this extremely popular "Magic Your Way" add-on. "

if the reporter is incorrect he needs to ammend or retract.

 

[kaytieeldr]

ok it wasn't Disney persay but it was the reporter who said
"From what I hear,

We've had many, many 'discussions' about that theory. The "from what I hear", unsupported by any facts, would tend to make me (but that's JUST me, not to be interpreted as a suggestion for anyone else) think the speaker was wrong.

 

[Kurby]

point taken but isn't there a difference between what you and i post and what a reporter prints?

honestly i don't know but it was always my understanding that the first rule of journalizam is to support your facts (be truth or not). if you say it you better be able to back it up with proof and not some waitress saying they're loosing money but someone higher up in the know.

maybe not - who knows.

 

[tloft]

they make hundreds of millions on dvds, cds, concert rights, theme parks, hotels, internet shopping, retail shopping, those vendors throughout the park and yes food (not everyone purchases the ddp), tv stations - (commercials) etc... over all Disney is not operating in the Red - far from it.

suck it up, take a small loss on the food side and off set it with the millions in profit you're making with everything else.

You're right Disney is not operating in the red - in fact they just finished the third of three record years for the company as a whole financially. However almost all of those record setting profits could be laid firmly at the feet of one thing - three years of Pirates of the Caribbean. Disney execs knew that they are going into 2008 with 1) no new Pirates movie 2) a rapidly weakening economy 3) a writers strike that will probably kill their most potentially lucrative property of '08 - High School Musical 3 and 4) a writers strike that will decimate the improved revenues they had cultivated in the broadcast division - primarily ABC. In fact Disney stock has already been down nearly 30% off of its peak last summer - which coincided with the release of POTC3. Hannah Montana is about the only thing producing the megabucks the Disney corporation needs out of its properties these days. Unfortunately market expectations mean that reduced earnings for '08 could potentially mean disportionate slashing of stock prices. The theme parks have always been the backbone, and the cash cow, of the Disney business. I believe the changes in the plan were a very calculated move to inject some profitabilty to help offset a lot of lost revenue.

 

[kaytieeldr]

point taken but isn't there a difference between what you and i post and what a reporter prints?

It depends. From whom did the reporter "hear"? Disney Finance? Disney Food & Beverage? Random unofficial Disney forums? Her/his brother's neighbor's best friend's niece's cousin's mailman?

 

[angelmav]

It depends. From whom did the reporter "hear"? Disney Finance? Disney Food & Beverage? Random unofficial Disney forums? Her/his brother's neighbor's best friend's niece's cousin's mailman?

If this story came from any reputable source, I highly doubt they got their info from any back alley source kaytieeldr. Why is it so difficult to accept that the old plan, while flawed from disney's perspective, added to the entire profitability and bottom line? It doesnt have to be an either or.
tloft, increasing the price of your product is the worst possible way for a company to react to the market changes you listed. You run the risk of turning away business and changing your image to the buying public which is a difficult thing to change back.

and to respond to an earlier question
Originally Posted by tloft

Obviously "i can care less" isn't true or you wouldn't feel compelled to comment any time this discussion comes up.

You dont respond/take part in threads that interest you????

 

[TLSnell1981]

It depends. From whom did the reporter "hear"? Disney Finance? Disney Food & Beverage? Random unofficial Disney forums? Her/his brother's neighbor's best friend's niece's cousin's mailman?

You are joking....right?

 

[kaytieeldr]

If this story came from any reputable source, I highly doubt they got their info from any back alley source kaytieeldr.

You are joking....right?

Exaggerating yes. Joking, no. I went back to January 27 in this thread and could not locate any reference to any reporter hearing/reporting anything. The FIRST mention of it, at least in the last seven days, is post # 621 on this page, where he/she states

ok it wasn't Disney persay but it was the reporter who said
"From what I hear, the Disney Dining Plan...

As quoted, both here and in thread 621, the unnamed reporter cites no sources. That reporter could have 'heard' the information from Disney's Food & Beverage President; or could have 'heard' it from a Disney server; or could have 'heard' it from a Disney Guest; or from an Orlando-area resident with no connection to the Company; or from some random passenger in an airport terminal; or his/her own relative with no connection... No, even from a reputable source (and we still don't know the source) it doesn't have to be true to be written.

Plus, frankly, wherever it WAS published has a lousy editing department. I tend to discount anything made difficult to read by the writer's poor use of grammar/punctuation. This applies to printed sources, NOT to DIS posts/posters.

 

[tloft]

tloft, increasing the price of your product is the worst possible way for a company to react to the market changes you listed. You run the risk of turning away business and changing your image to the buying public which is a difficult thing to change back.

sure, but with theme park attendance and resort occupancy at near all time highs, there wasn't a lot of backside left to value promotions. Obviously with the bouncebacks, free dining, and the 40% off codes floating around they are willing to discount things during slower season - but they were looking for ways to increase profitability the rest of the year. And to the casual visitor they actually didn't raise the price of the plan, they lowered it. We all know they gutted the value of the plan but I doubt the average visitor goes even once every four years so they have no idea what they are missing.

 

[DaParkers]

This was as of November 9, 2007.

Parks and Resorts revenues for the year increased 7 percent to $10.6 billion and segment operating income increased 11 percent to $1.7 billion. For the quarter, revenues increased 10 percent to $2.8 billion and segment operating income increased 9 percent to $430 million. Operating income growth for both the year and quarter was due to increases at Walt Disney World, Disneyland Resort Paris and Disneyland Resort, partially offset by lower performance at Hong Kong Disneyland Resort.

http://www.worldscreen.com/newscurrent.php?filename=disney110907.htm

 

[angelmav]

sure, but with theme park attendance and resort occupancy at near all time highs, there wasn't a lot of backside left to value promotions. Obviously with the bouncebacks, free dining, and the 40% off codes floating around they are willing to discount things during slower season - but they were looking for ways to increase profitability the rest of the year. And to the casual visitor they actually didn't raise the price of the plan, they lowered it. We all know they gutted the value of the plan but I doubt the average visitor goes even once every four years so they have no idea what they are missing.

True and excellent points, the only thing that I think they may have missed the mark on with that strategy is just how wildly popular the Dining plan had become and the enormous amount of repeat visitors they gained because of it. Probably more than any other promotion in Disney history the dining plan justified the splurges on tickets/resorts etc. Those repeat guests certainly are aware that the value was gutted as well as the ticket/resort increases, seasonal dining surcharges etc and thats a much bigger piece of the buying public than they have probably ever had to market to.

 

[englishrose47]

I was really interested in reading the article as it echoed exactly what I said would happen the Servers would be the losers. I all along said they should have raised the price to say $42 included the tip and given you a choice of appie or dessert. I think the complaints would have been a lot less. What I don't understand is how these people didn't know !!

 

[eliza61]

I was really interested in reading the article as it echoed exactly what I said would happen the Servers would be the losers. I all along said they should have raised the price to say $42 included the tip and given you a choice of appie or dessert. I think the complaints would have been a lot less. What I don't understand is how these people didn't know !!

Unfortunately I think whenever Disney raises the price on any thing it's like waiving a red flag in front on an enraged bull. Take a look on these boards any time Disney raises room or ticket prices all heck breaks loose. How many post do you see about how Disney is ripping the public off.

 

[JCMcGinn]

I'm curious about the "old" DDP's gratuity. Did the server get 18% of the menu prices (less any tip-out)? While that would be what Mickey would do, I'm not so sure that's what Mikey (now Bobby) would have done.

 

[dreamingaboutdisney]

I dont think the servers are losing money either way. I have purchased the DDP my last five trips and have enjoyed it . With the Character Meals and buffets all they do is bring your drinks and refill them, if you are lucky, they are making upwards of $ 20-$25.00 per table ,thats a lot of money in a night time. I hate that they removed the appetizer. I would have rather lost the dessert. I was told when I booked my trip for Sept 2008 that there were changes to the plan. Good luck Disney I think that if you were losing money before ,you will really lose it now. I Still love Disney!!!!

 

[TLSnell1981]

I'm curious about the "old" DDP's gratuity. Did the server get 18% of the menu prices (less any tip-out)? While that would be what Mickey would do, I'm not so sure that's what Mikey (now Bobby) would have done.

The servers were paid 18% on the price the meal would have cost. This is why the DDP, in it's past form, was so expensive for Disney.

 

[emmsmama]

I can say that for me WDW would have had a guaranteed week booking with me at a value or moderate resort if the old DDP guidelines were still in effect. We are going for two weeks and I was planning on one week onsite and one week off just so I could get the DDP, but with the changes I don't know if it is worth it anymore. So at least for one family they may have lost a week's booking at one of their resorts because of the changes made. I'm sure I'm not the only one that DDP plays a part in the decision whether to stay onsite or off. It's still an okay value, but to save $10-20 day based on how my family would likely eat if not on the DDP, I am currently leaning toward just staying offsite and skipping the DDP.

 

[Tricia1972]

I can say that for me WDW would have had a guaranteed week booking with me at a value or moderate resort if the old DDP guidelines were still in effect. We are going for two weeks and I was planning on one week onsite and one week off just so I could get the DDP, but with the changes I don't know if it is worth it anymore. So at least for one family they may have lost a week's booking at one of their resorts because of the changes made. I'm sure I'm not the only one that DDP plays a part in the decision whether to stay onsite or off. It's still an okay value, but to save $10-20 day based on how my family would likely eat if not on the DDP, I am currently leaning toward just staying offsite and skipping the DDP.

I have a personal question, and understand if you don't want to answer. Just wondering how much accomodations are for your family off-site vs on-site. I suspect that it's cheaper to stay off-site, and if that's the case then you'd save even more not doing the DDP.

 

[YesMickey]

I can say that for me WDW would have had a guaranteed week booking with me at a value or moderate resort if the old DDP guidelines were still in effect. We are going for two weeks and I was planning on one week onsite and one week off just so I could get the DDP, but with the changes I don't know if it is worth it anymore. So at least for one family they may have lost a week's booking at one of their resorts because of the changes made. I'm sure I'm not the only one that DDP plays a part in the decision whether to stay onsite or off. It's still an okay value, but to save $10-20 day based on how my family would likely eat if not on the DDP, I am currently leaning toward just staying offsite and skipping the DDP.

Unless my math is wrong the DDP is still a deal. I regret to say my family had to leave suddenly due to my DS4 and DW being ill with the "crud" it sounded like everyone there had, but the one meal we did eat was the amount of the whole days DDP payment of apprx. $98 for my family (2adults 2kids) We ate at Coral reef, I had the Mahi-Mahi and my two kids had the Mahi-Mahi, my wife had the shrimp fettucine, and our bill was around $95 including desserts and drinks. What that means is our snacks for the day were basically free and our great counter service at Sunshine Seansons was basically free. I must also admit that Sunshine Seasons has got to be the best Counter Service Restaurant in all of WDW, dining plan or not. I had the Salmon with rice and carrots. There were also these rottisseried Prime pork ribeyes that looked fabolous. Also they have a dessert section that comes with the adult meal included. These are all custom made desserts. Our total bill for this meal was $45. In all my $98 investment per day, I received approximately $150 in value. STILL A DEAL. Tip at Coral Reef was $20. You have to plan were you are going to eat. We sat next to people on the DDP at Sunshine Seasons, and they asked us if we were on the plan also, and if the desserts we had on our trey was included, in which we stated Yes. They did not see the dessert counter. I went and looked for it as I knew it was included. The desserts were around $3.50-$4.00 each. The meals were around $9.50.

 

[ssawka]

I can say that for me WDW would have had a guaranteed week booking with me at a value or moderate resort if the old DDP guidelines were still in effect. We are going for two weeks and I was planning on one week onsite and one week off just so I could get the DDP, but with the changes I don't know if it is worth it anymore. So at least for one family they may have lost a week's booking at one of their resorts because of the changes made. I'm sure I'm not the only one that DDP plays a part in the decision whether to stay onsite or off. It's still an okay value, but to save $10-20 day based on how my family would likely eat if not on the DDP, I am currently leaning toward just staying offsite and skipping the DDP.

One question I have is: Do you normally drive to WDW? If not, or If you wouldn't rent a car if you stayed onsite, you also need to factor in the price of a car rental.