Yuck On The Kid's Menus

[bicker]

Disney could simply increse the cost of the kids meal, make it a dollar less then the adult CS meal and let anyone order it. I don't think that would make parents happy.

I love doing the math. Cutting the size of the burger down to 2 oz, and cutting the side of fries/carrots in half, really does reduce the cost about $1, and there is almost a $2 difference in price between adult cheeseburger meal and the child meals. You really can't justify the low prices for the child meals by just cutting down the portion size.

 

[Lewisc]

Since you like doing math, assume the mother orders milk for her child. Doesn't Disney offer small cartons of milk as a beverage choice? Compare the cost, to Disney, of a small container of milk to the cost of the paper cup used for an adult soda. Now assume the concerned parent orders carrots and the adult orders fries. Am I wrong in assuming fries costs Disney less than carrots?

Under that example is there any net savings to Disney?

I love doing the math. Cutting the size of the burger down to 2 oz, and cutting the side of fries/carrots in half, really does reduce the cost about $1, and there is almost a $2 difference in price between adult cheeseburger meal and the child meals. You really can't justify the low prices for the child meals by just cutting down the portion size.

 

[mrsltg]

You know, I've looked through the kids menus and I don't necessarily see them as "Yuck". Granted, my kids are young (6&2), but when we go out to eat they usually end up eating off of my plate for the most part and sometimes they get grilled cheese or some such "kids food". My plan at WDW is always the same - get them what they want and plan to share my food with them. This way they still get their veggies, but they can have some of my broccoli with their chicken fingers or whatever it is they want. If there is jello for dessert or applesauce they can still have some of my cake or we'll get an ice cream later. We've never gone hungry...

I think the problem comes in when people try to get the most bang for their buck. I look at the dining plan as a convenience as opposed to a way to beat Disney (ask my dh the same question and you'll get a completely different answer!) Oh well - just MHO!

 

[Katiebell]

You're not going far enough in your analysis. Disney's managers must make their decisions by asking the question, "Which way does Disney make more money long-term?" There are folks there who's primary mission is to ensure that they're constantly answering that question accurately, and structuring their operations in response to the answer to that question. Practically nothing is as simple as it seems, ever, with anything.

Disney makes more money long term by making their guests happy. They've done it since the beginning, and it's why they have been so successful. That's why we all dream about Disney, read about Disney, post on boards about Disney, and spend huge sums of money to go back again and again -- because Disney is a wonderful vacation destination, and they know how to make their customers happy.

That's a very customer-focused perspective. It ignores the negative impact on owners. Again, Disney's managers don't have that luxury of taking such license. They have a fiduciary responsibility they have to live up to.

Yes, it's a customer-focused perspective -- I, and everyone else who posts on these boards, are customers Businesses that are customer-focused are extremely successful because they are customer-focused. Disney is probably the #1 company in America as far as customer loyalty, if there is anyway to accurately measure something so intangible. It's the fiduciary responsibility of Disney management to continue to focus on the customers, because that is what has made Disney outrageously successful. Without the magic, it becomes another Six Flags, although cleaner and with better funding.

Something that is positive for the customers is not necessarily negative for the business; a company may be willing to give a little financially in order to gain a lot financially, and it's a win-win situation. Perfect example is the Free Dining that WDW keeps offering. One could say, "Wow, look at all the revenue they are losing...they are giving away food for free!" But obviously, this has a positive financial impact on Disney -- the resorts are totally full during what used to be WDW's slowest season, at rack rate, guests buy tickets, souvenirs, other food items and alcohol...

Because the pricing model is likely based on the assumption that folks over the age of 9 will pay for full-priced meals.

Yes, but at CS restaurants, not all folks over the age of 9 will order full-priced meals. If they can't order a child's meal for themselves, that doesn't mean they will order a full priced adult meal. They will likely order the smallest items they can ala carte, or simply not order a meal at all and just share food with family members. Imagine a family: dad, mom (light eater), and DD11 (light eater). Dad orders regular CS meal, mom and DD each order $5 kids' meal. Or mom and DD order one $8 CS meal and split it.

There is a cost associated with that. If the abuse becomes onerous enough, we'll probably see that happen as well, or perhaps we'll see them simply increase the cost of the Dining Plan, and remove the restriction for CS. Then we can enjoy reading all of the complaints about that here on the DIS.

True enough I can't see them removing the CS restriction because the price difference between children's and adults' CS meals is so great -- and using children's credits to purchase adult meals is much more prevalent than the occasional adult who wants to order a smaller meal.

Assume the kids menu resembles the adult menu but is properly portioned for an 8-9 year old. That means a small not a tiny burger. That means a small soda not a sippy cup of apple juice. Your 5% number is very low. A number of guide books suggested purchasing kids meals (for adults) in order to save money. Some of us speculate that might have been one of the reasons Disney changed the menus.

Yeah, 2 oz is a very tiny burger. Take one lb of hamburger and divide it into 8 patties and you'll see. Even the famous "quarter pounder" is only 4 oz. That's before cooking -- and shrinking And a small soda would be markedly cheaper than juice or milk -- soda costs literally pennies. I actually think the 5% figure is on the high side -- I don't know if 5 out of 100 adults would really want to order a kiddie meal for themselves. I think they'd be more likely to order ala carte, share with family members, or just leave part of their meal uneaten. Maybe Disney could require that anyone consuming a child's meal has to sit in the corner of the restaurant, perched on tiny chairs at kindergarten-sized tables -- perhaps wearing one of those silly cone-shaped party hats -- that might cut down on adults ordering them

I love doing the math. Cutting the size of the burger down to 2 oz, and cutting the side of fries/carrots in half, really does reduce the cost about $1, and there is almost a $2 difference in price between adult cheeseburger meal and the child meals. You really can't justify the low prices for the child meals by just cutting down the portion size.

But they are already selling kids meals for that price anyway. They aren't losing money on the kids' meals, they just aren't making as much profit. And it can ultimately be more profitable to make a customer happy -- and loyal -- than to make an extra $1 on one sales transaction.

And to swing this around back to the thread topic, "Yuck On The Kid's Menus" it isn't about portion size. There are ways to make the kids' meals more appealing to children, with more variety, appropriate theming (burger at a burger place, pizza at a pizza place) but not so tantalizing that adults will be more likely to order them -- and still not break the budget.

 

[Madi100]

You know, I've looked through the kids menus and I don't necessarily see them as "Yuck". Granted, my kids are young (6&2), but when we go out to eat they usually end up eating off of my plate for the most part and sometimes they get grilled cheese or some such "kids food". My plan at WDW is always the same - get them what they want and plan to share my food with them. This way they still get their veggies, but they can have some of my broccoli with their chicken fingers or whatever it is they want. If there is jello for dessert or applesauce they can still have some of my cake or we'll get an ice cream later. We've never gone hungry...

I think the problem comes in when people try to get the most bang for their buck. I look at the dining plan as a convenience as opposed to a way to beat Disney (ask my dh the same question and you'll get a completely different answer!) Oh well - just MHO!

Overall, doing the dining plan is not saving us money. We used to spend less on food. But, we like the idea of the set amount for food. I did the math last night, and it is saving us money to do the dining plan then it would be to pay OOP for each and every meal we are going to eat at. However, if we weren't doing the dining plan, we'd be doing maybe 4 sitdown meals versus the 8 that we are doing.

Maybe I put my thread in the wrong category, because my problem isn't so much with the dining plan, it's with the children's menu. Like I said, I went through each menu last night and tried to estimate what we would spend. I have a six year old and a nine year old. And, the children's option are just not appealing regardless of the dining plan or not. There is a lot of repitition. Counter service meals just don't even make sense. They aren't huge eaters, so I'm not ordering them adult meals.

I would pay more for my kids' meals if they had better options.

 

[Madi100]

And to swing this around back to the thread topic, "Yuck On The Kid's Menus" it isn't about portion size. There are ways to make the kids' meals more appealing to children, with more variety, appropriate theming (burger at a burger place, pizza at a pizza place) but not so tantalizing that adults will be more likely to order them -- and still not break the budget.

Exactly. This is nothing about price. It is about the choices. I'd pay more for better selection. BTW, was it you that had a spreadsheet of choices for the kid's menus?

 

[Katiebell]

Exactly. This is nothing about price. It is about the choices. I'd pay more for better selection. BTW, was it you that had a spreadsheet of choices for the kid's menus?

Well, not exactly a spreadsheet...but I've compiled lists of the unique and/or most kid-appealing menu items at CS, TS, and 2 TS restaurants. Someone suggested I link to previous posts with those lists, but the information needs to be updated periodically, every time a newer, more current menu is posted here or at AllEars. I'm trying to figure out how to make a file of some sort that I can update on a monthly or bimonthly basis, and post a link to that. DH is a Technogeek, I'll see if he can help me out

 

[Madi100]

Well, not exactly a spreadsheet...but I've compiled lists of the unique and/or most kid-appealing menu items at CS, TS, and 2 TS restaurants. Someone suggested I link to previous posts with those lists, but the information needs to be updated periodically, every time a newer, more current menu is posted here or at AllEars. I'm trying to figure out how to make a file of some sort that I can update on a monthly or bimonthly basis, and post a link to that. DH is a Technogeek, I'll see if he can help me out

Well, if your list is at all shareable, I'd love to see it.

 

[Katiebell]

Well, if your list is at all shareable, I'd love to see it.

Sure thing! I PM'd you and will try to get it out to you by this evening

 

[TruBlu]

Sure thing! I PM'd you and will try to get it out to you by this evening

Would you mind sharing with me too?

 

[sorul82?]

Sure thing! I PM'd you and will try to get it out to you by this evening

Ooooh! Me too, pretty please!

 

[Katiebell]

Absolutely Just PM me with your email address, and I'll get it out to you.

 

[bicker]

Disney makes more money long term by making their guests happy.

To what extent that's true, Disney knows, and factors it into their decisions. It is not true that companies are best-off always doing whatever possible to make customers happy. That's a sure-fire way to drive the business into the ground. So assume that what Disney's doing is pretty-close to making their customers happy, to the extent that serves Disney's owners' long-term interests.

Yes, it's a customer-focused perspective -- I, and everyone else who posts on these boards, are customers

Many are customers trying to understand what they're getting with a Disney vacation. It is better to know what you're getting than have a one-sided and therefore inaccurate perspective.

Businesses that are customer-focused are extremely successful because they are customer-focused.

In a different way. I really shouldn't have called your perspective "customer-focused" -- it's really just "customer-biased". When I say a business is "customer-focused" what I mean is, essentially, that the business comes to understand what their customers are willing to pay for, and comes to understand what and how they should offer their products and services to customers to achieve the best long-term shareholder value. The point of my message was summed up in the one sentence: "Practically nothing is as simple as it seems, ever, with anything." And simply doing what customers want is not the way to achieve long-term shareholder value.

Disney is probably the #1 company in America as far as customer loyalty

Customer loyalty, in business, is defined as the customer's willingness to purchase products and services of a specific brand, at a premium. Customer loyalty is almost completely dead, in this country. I know. I was a customer loyalty analyst for Bell Laboratories for years, and watched loyalty decline precipitously as retail customers become distinctly price-senisitive.

It's the fiduciary responsibility of Disney management to continue to focus on the customers, because that is what has made Disney outrageously successful.

It is the fiduciary responsibility of Disney management to determine precisely how much is necessary to best serve long-term shareholder value, rather than assume that just doing what the customers want will achieve the best result.

Something that is positive for the customers is not necessarily negative for the business

Indeed, and something that is positive for customers is not necessarily positive for the business. As a matter of fact, they're essentially unrelated variables.

a company may be willing to give a little financially in order to gain a lot financially

Or may not, in which case it would be irresponsible -- an explicit violation of the fiduciary responsibility -- for the company to "give a little financially".

Perfect example is the Free Dining that WDW keeps offering. One could say, "Wow, look at all the revenue they are losing...they are giving away food for free!" But obviously, this has a positive financial impact on Disney -- the resorts are totally full during what used to be WDW's slowest season, at rack rate, guests buy tickets, souvenirs, other food items and alcohol...

And look at all the complaints about the Dining Plan. In the end, the way Disney offers it is the best way for it, long-term. So it is a perfect example -- an example of Disney deciding just how much to give customers, to have the best overall long-term effect. Note how they don't give more than that, even though it would be better for customers.

Yes, but at CS restaurants, not all folks over the age of 9 will order full-priced meals.

Business is a discipline of forecasts and averages. On the average, most will. That's sufficient for the business strategy I mentioned to be the best approach. Again, I think you're off-the-mark by making the implication that Disney's perspective on this is wrong because it doesn't give customers the ability to do what they want.

They will likely order the smallest items they can ala carte, or simply not order a meal at all and just share food with family members.

Or order a full-priced meal. While we speculate, Disney actually knows, and sets their policies accordingly.

I actually think the 5% figure is on the high side

And Lewis thinks it is on the low side. I think you're both wrong. Again, Disney knows. I figure if you two disagree, then truth is somewhere in between, so that really lends a lot of credence to that 5% number. Regardless, the policy indicates that the folks who actually know know that it is enough people to warrant the policy to be the way it is.

But they are already selling kids meals for that price anyway.

Which means that they must reflect a combination of two factors: Lower grade offerings than adult meals reflecting lower value (i.e., Sloppy Joe instead of hamburger), and a built-in loss-leader discount.

And it can ultimately be more profitable to make a customer happy -- and loyal -- than to make an extra $1 on one sales transaction.

Or not. Again, we just speculate, but Disney actually knows. My educated guess is that it probably isn't more profitable to make a customer happy and "loyal", as you put it and think of it, than to make the extra $1 on sales of child meals inside the theme parks with burger. Indeed, my guess is that if we see a return of burgers on child menus inside the theme parks, that either we'll see a price increase, or we can attribute it completely to it an increase in that loss-leader discount I mentioned, or a combination of the two.

 

[Madi100]

To what extent that's true, Disney knows, and factors it into their decisions. It is not true that companies are best-off always doing whatever possible to make customers happy. That's a sure-fire way to drive the business into the ground. So assume that what Disney's doing is pretty-close to making their customers happy, to the extent that serves Disney's owners' long-term interests.

Many are customers trying to understand what they're getting with a Disney vacation. It is better to know what you're getting than have a one-sided and therefore inaccurate perspective.

In a different way. I really shouldn't have called your perspective "customer-focused" -- it's really just "customer-biased". When I say a business is "customer-focused" what I mean is, essentially, that the business comes to understand what their customers are willing to pay for, and comes to understand what and how they should offer their products and services to customers to achieve the best long-term shareholder value. The point of my message was summed up in the one sentence: "Practically nothing is as simple as it seems, ever, with anything." And simply doing what customers want is not the way to achieve long-term shareholder value.

Customer loyalty, in business, is defined as the customer's willingness to purchase products and services of a specific brand, at a premium. Customer loyalty is almost completely dead, in this country. I know. I was a customer loyalty analyst for Bell Laboratories for years, and watched loyalty decline precipitously as retail customers become distinctly price-senisitive.

It is the fiduciary responsibility of Disney management to determine precisely how much is necessary to best serve long-term shareholder value, rather than assume that just doing what the customers want will achieve the best result.

Indeed, and something that is positive for customers is not necessarily positive for the business. As a matter of fact, they're essentially unrelated variables.

Or may not, in which case it would be irresponsible -- an explicit violation of the fiduciary responsibility -- for the company to "give a little financially".

And look at all the complaints about the Dining Plan. In the end, the way Disney offers it is the best way for it, long-term. So it is a perfect example -- an example of Disney deciding just how much to give customers, to have the best overall long-term effect. Note how they don't give more than that, even though it would be better for customers.

Business is a discipline of forecasts and averages. On the average, most will. That's sufficient for the business strategy I mentioned to be the best approach. Again, I think you're off-the-mark by making the implication that Disney's perspective on this is wrong because it doesn't give customers the ability to do what they want.

Or order a full-priced meal. While we speculate, Disney actually knows, and sets their policies accordingly.

And Lewis thinks it is on the low side. I think you're both wrong. Again, Disney knows. I figure if you two disagree, then truth is somewhere in between, so that really lends a lot of credence to that 5% number. Regardless, the policy indicates that the folks who actually know know that it is enough people to warrant the policy to be the way it is.

Which means that they must reflect a combination of two factors: Lower grade offerings than adult meals reflecting lower value (i.e., Sloppy Joe instead of hamburger), and a built-in loss-leader discount.

Or not. Again, we just speculate, but Disney actually knows. My educated guess is that it probably isn't more profitable to make a customer happy and "loyal", as you put it and think of it, than to make the extra $1 on sales of child meals inside the theme parks with burger. Indeed, my guess is that if we see a return of burgers on child menus inside the theme parks, that either we'll see a price increase, or we can attribute it completely to it an increase in that loss-leader discount I mentioned, or a combination of the two.

You do a very fine job of debating, and I don't mean that sarcastically or anything. However, do you have children that eat off of this menu, because it makes a difference in my next question I'm going to ask you? Do you honestly believe that the new children's menus are a good thing?

 

[Mom of 3]

I just took a look at the kids menus. The ones for counter service aren't up to much. Honestly, my kids have better taste than that. My kids are going to turn their noses up at mac'n'cheese, chicken nuggets, PB&J, hot dogs etc... we just don't eat that kind of food.

Yes, it is good that Disney offers fruits and veggies with kids meals but the same thing every meal is going to get old after the second day.

My kids are use to asparagus, spinach, fresh salads and all kids of fresh fruits. In fact they are spoiled since we eat very healthy and from scratch at every meal.

The TS has some better choices and are definitely offers a little more choice than CS. My kids love things like the grilled fish or grilled chicken.

My 3 and 7 year old are going to be disappointed.

 

[bicker]

You do a very fine job of debating, and I don't mean that sarcastically or anything. However, do you have children that eat off of this menu, because it makes a difference in my next question I'm going to ask you?

Yup. We bring the little ones with us every other year. (Wanna see how cute they are? Check out THIS.)

Do you honestly believe that the new children's menus are a good thing?

Good thing for who? For Disney? I believe so, surely. I doubt there are a significant number of guests for whom the gelatin prompts a change in guest purchasing behaviors that adversely affect those guests' contribution to shareholder value, present and future, much at all. And most guests, there is literally no impact on guest purchasing behaviors, or a long-term positive impact. That's my guess.

For us? Having the gelatin offered is definitely better than not having any dessert included at all. Mikkel would have had no problem with the gelatin, and Ben would have shared my dessert or my brother's -- neither of us need a whole dessert.

 

[Katiebell]

Customer loyalty is almost completely dead, in this country. I know. I was a customer loyalty analyst for Bell Laboratories for years, and watched loyalty decline precipitously as retail customers become distinctly price-senisitive.

Well, that sentence explains a lot about our discussions You may not have that particular position anymore, and I don't know what you're doing now for a living -- but now it makes perfect sense why you always debate the corporate side, and what's best for the company, and what's best for the business. You're a suit

I...in case it's not obvious...am not a suit. In fact, I'm about as far from it as I can get I had the option to go the management route and declined. Enthusiastically. Resisted the Dark Side, I did, yesss...

I work in a corporate environment (and have done so at more than one company) in customer service. I have one-on-one contact with the customers and help act as a liaison between the customer and the company to resolve issues and conflicts. And yes, I see both sides. The company needs to make a profit in order to be successful in business, satisfy the shareholders, serve the customers, and keep everybody employed. But they also have to be fair to the customers, and listen and respond to customer concerns, needs, and wants. Without the customers, the company wouldn't exist because there would be no one to buy their services or goods.

I believe you and Lewis both do an excellent job of presenting the corporate view, and often bring up points that a consumer may overlook. But I also think you miss the guests' point of view at times, or don't give it much weight or credence. I truly don't feel my position is as unbalanced, one-sided, or inaccurate. I am well aware that the customer is not always right -- but bicker, they aren't always wrong, either. A company can't give a customer everything they want -- but they can give a customer some things they want, enough that they will want to continue being their customer and not go to the competition. There is such a thing as customer loyalty -- Disney proves that. People are willing to pay the extra for a Disney vacation, even though Universal and Sea World and Six Flags are much less expensive. But customers are only willing to pay a premium if the product or service is worth it to them. It's not about what's cheapest -- it's about getting the very best value for what a consumer can reasonably afford.

The title of this thread: "Yuck On The Kid's Menus" is a common sentiment. Look at the overwhelming number of posts that agree, and the many, many threads on the same subject here and on other Disney boards. I don't believe this is just a vocal minority. For every person on here that is expressing their displeasure, there are probably thousands of other Disney guests that are also displeased with the kids' menu choices. So they either buy the kids' meals and are frustrated if their children don't eat them, or share their own meals, or sneak lunches into the parks, or eat off site. Anyone can look at the kids' menus and see that many of the choices are boring, repetitive, and just plain unappealing. No adult would want to have the same menu for lunch and dinner for a week. It's not impossible to find some better options, but you really have to look, and the adults in the party have to be willing to compromise and not automatically pick a place to eat based on their own preferences. I've combed through the most current kids' menus I can find, and compiled lists of the most unique or appealing choices I've found for CS, TS, and 2 TS -- and I was surprised at the number of requests I've received for those lists, although I am definitely glad to send them out, I hope they are helpful.

The people who are unhappy about the kids' meals aren't asking for their children to be served filet mignon and truffles -- they just want to buy their kids a burger or a piece of pizza without having to run all over WDW looking for it.

Edited to add: just saw the video of your kids...they are so cute they make up for the fact that you're a suit!

 

[Madi100]

Yup. We bring the little ones with us every other year. (Wanna see how cute they are? Check out THIS.)

Good thing for who? For Disney? I believe so, surely. I doubt there are a significant number of guests for whom the gelatin prompts a change in guest purchasing behaviors that adversely affect those guests' contribution to shareholder value, present and future, much at all. And most guests, there is literally no impact on guest purchasing behaviors, or a long-term positive impact. That's my guess.

For us? Having the gelatin offered is definitely better than not having any dessert included at all. Mikkel would have had no problem with the gelatin, and Ben would have shared my dessert or my brother's -- neither of us need a whole dessert.

cute kids Honestly, as a consumer, I am not concerned with what is best for Disney. Of course, I'd love for Disney to stay in business, so I want them to make smart decisions. Healthy eating is great. And, I would have to doubt that they decided to start having healthy food because it's cheaper. I could be wrong, and I don't think that part matters. They are trying to give healthy options. But, their options stink! Dining plan or not, they don't have many options for kids unless they order off the adult menu, and that is a waste of food.

 

[Madi100]

Well, that sentence explains a lot about our discussions You may not have that particular position anymore, and I don't know what you're doing now for a living -- but now it makes perfect sense why you always debate the corporate side, and what's best for the company, and what's best for the business. You're a suit

I...in case it's not obvious...am not a suit. In fact, I'm about as far from it as I can get I had the option to go the management route and declined. Enthusiastically. Resisted the Dark Side, I did, yesss...

I work in a corporate environment (and have done so at more than one company) in customer service. I have one-on-one contact with the customers and help act as a liaison between the customer and the company to resolve issues and conflicts. And yes, I see both sides. The company needs to make a profit in order to be successful in business, satisfy the shareholders, serve the customers, and keep everybody employed. But they also have to be fair to the customers, and listen and respond to customer concerns, needs, and wants. Without the customers, the company wouldn't exist because there would be no one to buy their services or goods.

I believe you and Lewis both do an excellent job of presenting the corporate view, and often bring up points that a consumer may overlook. But I also think you miss the guests' point of view at times, or don't give it much weight or credence. I truly don't feel my position is as unbalanced, one-sided, or inaccurate. I am well aware that the customer is not always right -- but bicker, they aren't always wrong, either. A company can't give a customer everything they want -- but they can give a customer some things they want, enough that they will want to continue being their customer and not go to the competition. There is such a thing as customer loyalty -- Disney proves that. People are willing to pay the extra for a Disney vacation, even though Universal and Sea World and Six Flags are much less expensive. But customers are only willing to pay a premium if the product or service is worth it to them. It's not about what's cheapest -- it's about getting the very best value for what a consumer can reasonably afford.

The title of this thread: "Yuck On The Kid's Menus" is a common sentiment. Look at the overwhelming number of posts that agree, and the many, many threads on the same subject here and on other Disney boards. I don't believe this is just a vocal minority. For every person on here that is expressing their displeasure, there are probably thousands of other Disney guests that are also displeased with the kids' menu choices. So they either buy the kids' meals and are frustrated if their children don't eat them, or share their own meals, or sneak lunches into the parks, or eat off site. Anyone can look at the kids' menus and see that many of the choices are boring, repetitive, and just plain unappealing. No adult would want to have the same menu for lunch and dinner for a week. It's not impossible to find some better options, but you really have to look, and the adults in the party have to be willing to compromise and not automatically pick a place to eat based on their own preferences. I've combed through the most current kids' menus I can find, and compiled lists of the most unique or appealing choices I've found for CS, TS, and 2 TS -- and I was surprised at the number of requests I've received for those lists, although I am definitely glad to send them out, I hope they are helpful.

The people who are unhappy about the kids' meals aren't asking for their children to be served filet mignon and truffles -- they just want to buy their kids a burger or a piece of pizza without having to run all over WDW looking for it.

Edited to add: just saw the video of your kids...they are so cute they make up for the fact that you're a suit!

Very well said!

 

[bicker]

Well, that sentence explains a lot about our discussions You may not have that particular position anymore, and I don't know what you're doing now for a living -- but now it makes perfect sense why you always debate the corporate side, and what's best for the company, and what's best for the business. You're a suit

Actually, that's not really it, or at best, that's a third-order consideration. Rather, two things primarily drive my comments:

(1) I abhor bias, and online discussions are almost always biased against the supplier. I tend to provide balance to discussions where I feel that there is a terrible imbalance of perspective.

(2) I feel guests are best-served by having well-founded expectations and being delighted when they get something extra, rather than having unfounded expectations and being disappointed when the reality doesn't live up to those expectations.

The company needs to make a profit in order to be successful in business, satisfy the shareholders, serve the customers, and keep everybody employed. But they also have to be fair to the customers, and listen and respond to customer concerns, needs, and wants. Without the customers, the company wouldn't exist because there would be no one to buy their services or goods.

Are you suggesting that Disney isn't being fair?

The reality is that that companies need to come to understand their customers, but that includes both learning what does drive their purchasing behaviors and what doesn't -- and for things that don't, we shouldn't expect companies to make any changes regarding those things.

I believe you and Lewis both do an excellent job of presenting the corporate view, and often bring up points that a consumer may overlook. But I also think you miss the guests' point of view at times, or don't give it much weight or credence.

Don't let our comments make you think that. Note what we actually say -- we never say that a customer shouldn't FEEL a certain way. We focus just on what people should expect, what will or will not likely happen, and what is fair based on our society's consensus as reflected in our laws.

I truly don't feel my position is as unbalanced, one-sided, or inaccurate.

Neither do I feel my position is as unbalanced, one-sided, or inaccurate, but I bet you do. I aim to present reality.

I am well aware that the customer is not always right -- but bicker, they aren't always wrong, either.

I agree completely. I would never say anything to the contrary. That's a red herring.

A company can't give a customer everything they want -- but they can give a customer some things they want, enough that they will want to continue being their customer and not go to the competition.

And really, not much more. Everything extra a corporation (especially) gives must be justified, because otherwise it is a betrayal of the trust owners grant to their trustees, the directors of the corporation. We don't want Disney to become another Enron.

There is such a thing as customer loyalty -- Disney proves that.

Only to a certain extent, though, and no where near what it once was.

People are willing to pay the extra for a Disney vacation, even though Universal and Sea World and Six Flags are much less expensive.

Be careful -- paying more for better isn't loyalty. That's choosing a grade of service and paying based on value. Loyalty is continuing to pay more to go to WDW, even though Universal is just as good.

The title of this thread: "Yuck On The Kid's Menus" is a common sentiment. Look at the overwhelming number of posts that agree, and the many, many threads on the same subject here and on other Disney boards. I don't believe this is just a vocal minority.

But only Disney knows for sure, how many, and how much it really matters to them.