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

[bicker]

I have a feeling that they wouldn't get many takers at 2 TS credits.

I'm not sure I've made my point clear: Will they get more "takers" if they're non-participating?

 

[Pedler]

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.

The problem the non Disney owned places may have is covering their fixed cost which I imagine is quite high. Its not like they can survive if they only are operating at 25% capacity but are able to charge their normal prices. There is some minimum rate they need to operate at with the normal prices to break even. Of course with DDP reimbursement that rate is higher. The problem they could run into is that if they are 2 TS credits they most likely won't get much DDP business and if they don't take it then most people on it will probably not eat there. You can just imagine what that would do to the Epcot places during the free dinning promos where many of the on site guests are on the plan.

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.

Yeah, I don't think Disney would go for that at all.

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.

I do think that Disney does want as much participation as possible, at least at the restaurants in the parks. It makes the plan and thus rack rate rooms easier to sell if they have more locations. On the flip side I don't think Disney cares if a non Disney place is 1 or 2 TS credits. That is the restaurants decision on their reimbursement. The problem the restaurants have is the one I stated above.

In the dark of the night I do truly think that the non Disney Owned places probably wish the Disney Dinning Plan would just go away. Unfortunately for them that isn't likely to happen. They will have to make a choice between less profit per person or a much smaller pool of potential customers.

 

[Lewisc]

Reducing portion size might increase revenue if it reduced sharing. The savings wouldn't come from the dollar value of the food but rather ending the TOO MUCH FOOD TO EAT mentality. Setting up a buffet for salad, soup and a few appetizers would give restaurants a way to charge every guest. It may be possible to feed a customer for "one credit". It's another thing to feed a table for "one credit".

With the exception of CSR the restaurants can't win. You're right Disney doesn't need them. Disney probably won't let them restrict the menu, although Teppanyaki found a way to fine tune the menu. The restaurant doesn't win if the Dining Plan costs them customers. Does it really matter if they lose customers because they don't participate or if they lose customers because they're forced to go to signature status? Disney really can't have a resort without any participating restaurants. Barring any contractual restrictions Disney could just open another CS restaurant at CSR. On a temporary basis they could even set up a CS by using part of the convention center. BUT if there are contractual restriction Disney will have to find a way to accomodate CSR guests.

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.

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.

Oh yes, that'll go over well.

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

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]

I'm not sure I've made my point clear: Will they get more "takers" if they're non-participating?

No, I understood what you were saying. My point was that functionally being 2 credits wouldn't get you significantly more people than if you didn't take the plan. Or to put it another almost no one on the dinning plan would use 2 credits for the WS places so functionally it wouldn't have any real impact on the bottom line. If al they got were 2 tables a night of 2 TS dinning plan people then it in essence has no impact on the bottom line.They still have the problem of DDP folks not going there and thus being excluded from a significant number of potential guests.

 

[Lewisc]

I'm not sure I've made my point clear: Will they get more "takers" if they're non-participating?

The difference may be so small that it won't matter. The restaurants would get so few MYW customers at 2 credits that they might be better off not being on the plan. The restaurant could feature some menu items that aren't possible, even with 2 credits. 2 credits helps Disney but really doesn't help the restaurant.

My guess is the restaurants will blink but we might not like the menu changes.

I see Peddler basically made the same point.

If all the non-Disney restaurants stay off the plan some guests might decide against the plan, if the restaurants are signature status the guests might buy the plan but not eat in those restaurants.

 

[debbi801]

For us, it means a return to the way we used to eat. Mostly counter service and a few TS. We won't purchase the dining plan unless it changes back before our next trip. We like eating in EPCOT, that is where the majority of our dining was spent on our last trip.

I'm not going to not eat in EPCOT and I hope others feel the same way. It would be a tragedy for these restaurants to get ignored because of them not being on the dining plan.

 

[Lewisc]

I'm confused if you don't purchase the dining plan, and like eating in EPCOT, why wouldn't you patronize restaurants that don't participate with MYW Dining?

For us, it means a return to the way we used to eat. Mostly counter service and a few TS. We won't purchase the dining plan unless it changes back before our next trip. We like eating in EPCOT, that is where the majority of our dining was spent on our last trip.

I'm not going to not eat in EPCOT and I hope others feel the same way. It would be a tragedy for these restaurants to get ignored because of them not being on the dining plan.

 

[Pedler]

I'm not going to not eat in EPCOT and I hope others feel the same way. It would be a tragedy for these restaurants to get ignored because of them not being on the dining plan.

I think that there will be people on the dinning plan that won't go there because they are not on it. I would imagine it would actually be a large percentage of people on the dinning plan wouldn't go to a TS place that isn't on it.

 

[Mulan'sMom]

We loved the DDP last October - and with 2 adults and one child, saved almost $260 on a seven-day trip. We used our CS for breakfast at our resort everyday. I'm not paying OOP for Pepper Market, which I understand is quite pricey - plus a 10% add-on tip. In fact, I'll have to do the math and decide whether to get the DDP and stay at a moderate resort, or go without and stay at the Swolphin with a nurse's discount.

 

[CarolA]

I just posted the differences between the two brochures, in terms of restaurants and eateries, in the DDP Sticky Thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=13877209&postcount=532

I think the changes are too consistent (i.e., all non-Disney owned restaurants) to be anything other than a deliberate move on Disney to stop helping its competitors. I think some of those restaurants will be hurt, to some extent, especially Maya Grill, Tangierine Cafe, Marrakesh, Nine Dragons, San Angel Inn, and Teppanyaki.

I disagree. I would not be surprised if the mangement teams of those resturants got together and said ENOUGH... This cannot be as profitable for them as people who pay your own way. So they give Disney a choice, UP the reimbursment or they walk.....which will hurt Disney probably as much as it hurts them.

If they do lose some business it may be that it was so 'unprofitable" that they think the increase from folks like me just walking in will make up for it!

 

[Pedler]

I disagree. I would not be surprised if the mangement teams of those resturants got together and said ENOUGH... This cannot be as profitable for them as people who pay your own way. So they give Disney a choice, UP the reimbursment or they walk.....which will hurt Disney probably as much as it hurts them.

If they do lose some business it may be that it was so 'unprofitable" that they think the increase from folks like me just walking in will make up for it!

It could be though I still see it as unlikely. When you have chains such as Planet Hollywood also "opting out" at the same time as everyone else is it just seems coincidental. A chain like Planet Hollywood is probably not going to make this decision on the local level and most likely isn't going to care if they show solidarity with their non Disney owned brethren or not. It just seem like there is too diverse a group of restaurants when you take into account the Downtown Disney Places too have them create some organized front. Who knows. Time will tell.

I do seem to remember back when the DDP was first rolled out and the Epcot places were not on it people coming back and saying that they were feeling the effect in less people in the restaurants.

 

[BillSears]

I can see Disney talkint to the restaurant managers now...

"Yes you'll lose $5.00 per meal under our plan but you'll make up for it in volume of meals served."

Hey maybe they can make the Pepper Market the first counter service signature meal and charge 2 CS credits?

 

[Lostgirlz]

It has caused some issues for the ones like me who are going around the start of the year. We are going on our honeymoon, first time to disney, so we were not expecting this when I booked adr's beofre they released this news. 3 of mine are off the list now trying to figure out what to do about those risk it and end up not being able to get into a back-up later, or change it then have to try ad change it back. From what I was told the plan will go into effect jan 1 2007.

 

[Lewisc]

Hey maybe they can make the Pepper Market the first counter service signature meal and charge 2 CS credits?

or move it from the BEST CS (Disney calls it quick service) deal to the WORST TS deal.

 

[bicker]

The problem the non Disney owned places may have is covering their fixed cost which I imagine is quite high.

They didn't have a problem before the Dining Plan. All the Dining Plan does is give Disney a little bit of a competitive advantage. If the other restaurants cannot take a little bit of competition, and cannot offer something special that Disney doesn't, then perhaps it is time for Disney to take over some of those restaurants. I am pretty confident that Disney would love to do that at CSR, and perhaps that objective is underlying Disney's perspective with regard to this issue in general: Why should Disney try so hard to help its competitors compete against them?

 

[bicker]

Reducing portion size might increase revenue if it reduced sharing.

I cannot see it reducing sharing substantially more than it would tend to reduce patronage in general, in the long-term. Some people are likely to have very negative reactions to substantially smaller portions, and those negative reactions are almost surely going to overwhelm the tiny cost savings from buying less food ingredients.

The savings wouldn't come from the dollar value of the food but rather ending the TOO MUCH FOOD TO EAT mentality. .... It's another thing to feed a table for "one credit".

I'd love to hear what frequent-share-ers have to say about that idea.

 

[bicker]

Or to put it another almost no one on the dinning plan would use 2 credits for the WS places so functionally it wouldn't have any real impact on the bottom line.

The bottom line for the restaurants perhaps, but I think it will safeguard patronage of the Dining Plan itself: Most people won't internalize the situation as "Gosh, these are all 2TS so it's just like they're non-participating for me." Rather, they'll internalize the situation as "Gosh, all the restaurants are participating." and then separately, "Let's choose one of these 1TS restaurants, so our credits can go further."

 

[bicker]

I would not be surprised if the mangement teams of those resturants got together and said ENOUGH.

As Pedler said, that's really unlikely. Even if 80% of them got together, I could see that -- NOT 100%, uniformly, across-the-board, without exception. Remember, they're not only competing with Disney's restaurants, but also with each other. Furthermore, there are likely to be some of these restaurants that were feeling the pain less than others.

 

[Lewisc]

I suspect some of the more crowded restaurants would like to find a way to get rid of guests who are eating but not paying for a meal (sharing). This year Disney changed CRT and effectively put an end to sharing and to dessert only customers.



CSR is probably the only location where Disney needs the restaurant more than the restaurant needs the dining plan. CSR does a lot of convention business and those guests aren't on the dining plan. PM can afford to lose the dining guests who go to PM to order the rib eye steak. I doubt Disney wants to lose dining plan guests who stay at CSR or want to deal with the complaints when guests realize there isn't a participating restaurant in the resort.

Restaurants that are on Disney property, that pay Disney substantial rent and that help attract visitors aren't competitors as much as they're partners.

The problem isn't with the restaurants participating. The problem is some of us may not like what the restaurants do in order to profitably continue to participate. I'm sure PM could profitably participate, if they drop the menu items that aren't even offered at other resorts such as the rib eye steak.

Table service restaurants could drop the appetizer menu and just offer soup or salad. Drop the dessert menu and just offer ice cream and a few commercially prepared cake and pie items. Guests seem to be judging the restaurants based on the menu price of the most expensive entrées. Offer a 14 oz NY Strip steak but price it at $32.99.

The dining plan effectively puts a maximum price on the cost of food that a restaurant can profitably offer ALL guests, not just the MYW Dining guests.

They didn't have a problem before the Dining Plan. All the Dining Plan does is give Disney a little bit of a competitive advantage. If the other restaurants cannot take a little bit of competition, and cannot offer something special that Disney doesn't, then perhaps it is time for Disney to take over some of those restaurants. I am pretty confident that Disney would love to do that at CSR, and perhaps that objective is underlying Disney's perspective with regard to this issue in general: Why should Disney try so hard to help its competitors compete against them?

 

[Pedler]

They didn't have a problem before the Dining Plan. All the Dining Plan does is give Disney a little bit of a competitive advantage. If the other restaurants cannot take a little bit of competition, and cannot offer something special that Disney doesn't, then perhaps it is time for Disney to take over some of those restaurants. I am pretty confident that Disney would love to do that at CSR, and perhaps that objective is underlying Disney's perspective with regard to this issue in general: Why should Disney try so hard to help its competitors compete against them?

True but before then they didn't have people getting essentially whatever they wanted at a fixed price if they took the dinning plan or risk having reduced sales because they are not on the dinning plan.

My whole point is that a restaurant that is not on the DDP will likely have significantly reduced sales than they did before the dinning plan didn't exist. I don't think its a case of not taking the dinning plan and having things the way there were 2 years ago. Their choice is to either take the dinning plan and live with the issues it brings to them or have less business than they did 2 years ago and see if they can make it on that.

While Disney has had dinning plans for many years this current version, the Disney Dinning Plan, seems to be far and away the most popular version they have had. As a result places that don't take it risk loosing a significant percentage of park patrons as potential customers. Some may say good riddance but you have to wonder if there are going to be enough non dinning plan people left to support the non dinning plan places. From reports back when the plan first started it appeared that the WS places were taking a hit from not being on the plan.