I didn't mention before what we do: We share meals, but never split a single meal between two of us. We understand that the restaurant is serving a large portion because that's what some guests expect, not so we can split the large portion between the two of us.
How long before they stop letting people share?
- Thread starter jodifla
- Start date
angiedora
Loves Kermey
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2005
I think its goofy to think that it is a big deal to share. If it were not O.K. they would add a fee for sharing. The restaurants are there to serve us. If they make it difficult for those with the need/want to share, they may not get as much patronage. The point of the ddp is for Disney Restaurants to get more of our money. Who cares who thinks its tacky or pathetic. Its your money, do with it as you wish.
Not necessarily. Disney clearly hates doing things like that. Some people figured that it was "okay" to share meals with folks not on the plan, and to use child credits for adult meals, but clearly that wasn't okay. I do believe that sharing is okay, but not because Disney isn't doing something to stop it.
If you ask some folks on the DIS, the restaurants have too much patronage, and so it would make sense for Disney to do things to bring that under control. Some folks attribute the new child meals to that, the simplification of the menus, cracking down on neat pixie dust that we often have encountered in the restaurants, etc. Who knows what causes what, really? However, what we do know is that there is a balancing act restaurants need to perform, between what they offer and what they control. It isn't a good move to do everything in the customer's favor, just like it isn't a good move to do everything to the customer's detriment.
disneymom2one
All our dreams can come true, if we have the coura
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2001
But what about families who do? And again, I see this as both a DDP issue and a non-DDP issue. Suppose we're not on the DDP and we're just at home at a restaurant. We clearly would share. The eleven year old (one and only daughter) doesn't care for kids' meals anymore but really can't eat even an adult entree by herself. And my husband and I certainly don't need two large entrees for ourself. We eat reasonably healthy and restaurant portions are huge. So we order maybe two entrees and sometimes something else and split it among ourselves. I'm not cheap but why should i pay for food that will clearly go uneaten? Suppose we're again at WDW but again not on the DDP? We would share. I think last summer when we ate at Spoodles we ordered one appetizer and two entrees, plus three drinks. Huge amount of food (plus the bread that comes with the meal) and it was plenty for the three of us. No desserts ordered or needed.
So just a few weeks ago, we're at WDW ON the Dining Plan. We shared everywhere we could. And we still usually had to have desserts boxed up. And yes by doing that we ate at a couple extra places. I think we shared at five places so that gave us five "extra" credits and we did use four of those at two other meals. But if two credits will feed the three of us (with room to spare) I just don't see what the big deal is. We're not being cheap but just using common sense. I didn't see it as cheating then (or being cheap) nor do I see it as cheating now. I also am not sure I completely see the downside to WDW's bottom line. Food-wise they came out the same. We ordered (for the sake of argument) fifteen meals (well actually fourteen). We just spread it our over seven meals rather than five. Table-wise yes clearly we took up two extra tables at two other meals. So are they losing on labor costs? Because we're using the credits in any case.
And again what happens next trip when for half of it we won't be on the DDP? We'll share ... again. I don't know. We play by the rules so if they impose a rule that says "all diners on the DDP MUST use a credit at every TS meal" we'll either play by those rules or skip the DDP. Same if they impose a plate fee. Clearly there are many meals on property that already require each person to use a credit or two. But again, what it we're not on the DDP? I guess we'll pay the plating fee when/if it comes in. I just think sharing is such a different animal than using kids' credits for adults or treating other people.
Another thing ... enforcement. Kids are strange. Sometimes they're just not in the mood to eat. It would seem awfully unfair to charge a plating fee everywhere or require a use of a credit. Not saying they won't as "fairness" isn't the bottom line - WDW exists to make money. And do you treat DDP customers differently? Do you force the use of a credit but still allow sharing among those NOT on the DDP? I think it's an awfully tough issue. It's easy at places like Crystal Palace where you can both charge a credit and charge non-DDP people buffet prices. But what is the "price" you charge at say ... Spoodles? Do you just *not* charge anything but force DDP people to use a credit? Again, I'm okay with anything but I think it's a tough issue.
EXACTLY my point!
I especially fail to see how they come out behind in labor costs. Especially when it's entirely possible for a family of 4 to split up for meals. If, as is being argued is the "ideal way", this family of 4 uses 4 TS credits - mother and son at LE Cellier and father and dtr at Kona's, say, because their plans were to split, then they're still using up 2 different table spaces for the same 4 credits. I don't see how that is ok, but the family eating all together twice, but using 2 TS credits each time is not.
And, to the point of this thread, I don't think DIsney does, either. I don't see it being an issue anytime soon. There is a huge difference in terms of actual cost lost between their recent crack-down on children's credits (value $11) being used for adult meals (value $40+), and the "lost cost" involved in splitting meals.
There is only a finite amount of money Disney is getting from my family for food. They can have it whichever way they want it, but our food budget is our food budget and that is it. If we can share an entree or two here or there, great; then we can order a couple of appetizers/desserts to share as well. If they say everyone has to pay for their own entree, fine; no apps or desserts for us because we just don't need that much food. We don't generally share meals at home, but we rarely order apps and never dessert (the kids usually have a dessert with their kids meal). It's really immaterial to me.
We really only planned on sharing at one of our TS last time, and that was because the kids are both considered adult (10 & 12). I planned on having them split an adult entree at WCC but it was unnecessary because our waitress allowed them to order the burger from the kid's menu.
If we were to do the dining plan, I would expect the children would share an adult entree, however, if there was something on the kids menu they wanted I would probably pay OOP for it and save the credit for them to use at another time.
We really only planned on sharing at one of our TS last time, and that was because the kids are both considered adult (10 & 12). I planned on having them split an adult entree at WCC but it was unnecessary because our waitress allowed them to order the burger from the kid's menu.
If we were to do the dining plan, I would expect the children would share an adult entree, however, if there was something on the kids menu they wanted I would probably pay OOP for it and save the credit for them to use at another time.
disneymom2one
All our dreams can come true, if we have the coura
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2001
I admit I never saw that side either. What *is* the difference in the situation the above poster mentioned. The *only* downside I see for Disney as far as sharing is because we stretched out our credits over more meals. In that case I "suppose" they may have lost a little on what we would have paid OOP. In other words, because we got seven meals out of the fifteen credits rather than five, I suppose we did save some extra OOP costs by not having to pay for those two meals. But even that is a HUGE stretch in my opinion because there's no way we would have eaten TS for those two meals. We would have eaten in the villa or CS probably.
And that still doesn't account for those people not on the DDP. What is the downside to Disney of them sharing? I hear a lot about costs at the table but I have to tell you as a family of three we are seated at a table for four 90% of the time. Are they "losing" money on us each time? I just don't buy that argument.
The reason why I'm so curious about the downside to Disney is because the truth is we really liked the plan. I'd like to continue to use it. So much easier (and more fun too). One less thing to worry about. But if they put in some tough policies about sharing we won't do it anymore. So I'm really trying to see a big financial downside for WDW for sharing - and I just don't see it. I realize restaurants all over the country impose plating fees and I suppose WDW can too.
PinkTink63
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
My sentiments EXACTLY!! That is the point I was trying to make! I think people are making way more out of it! Sure, there are people that are always going to cheat the system or at least try.
If those people that think it is cheating by sharing a meal, than don't! Order your meal for everyone and eat it all up or don't and throw out what is left!
I will continue to buy a meal and if I want to share it with my family, I will!
You cheaters out there, you know who you are!
However, that's you. Disney doesn't deal in individuals; For good or ill, Disney deals in the mass-market. Also, what matter is not just what people would do in a counter-situation, but also (and perhaps more importantly) the overall effect of things on acceptance of and patronage of high-margin offerings.
I believe you're asking the wrong question. Ask, instead: What is the upside to Disney?
Try thinking of things the other way, and I believe you'll start to understand: What is the big financial upside for WDW to allow sharing? Why should they do as you want them to? That's what matters. Not whether or not what you want would cost them much or not.
Regardless, I think, at this point, they do derive some benefit from allowing sharing (good will still has some small value, though not much), but I do believe it's a marginal thing, so the wind could blow the other way tomorrow, and Jodi's concerns could be proven well-founded.
First I think the only effect the DDP has on sharing / not sharing is that it is increasing the number of people at the TS places. Other than that any sharing issue crosses all types of patrons, OOP, DDE and DDP.
I don't think I would frame this in terms of losing money. Losing money would imply that the costs for the people sharing exceed the money paid. That clearly isn't' the case when they seat a party of 2 or 3 at a table for 4. The way to look at this is in terms of opportunity cost. What could they have made if all 4 seats at a table for 4 ordered an full meal. This only comes into play if the empty seat or seat that shared a meal could be consistently filled with a person that would pay for that seat by ordering more food. I think that is really the key to deciding to do something about sharing. A sharing policy isn't very granular. Once you have the policy it affects both busy and non busy times. During the busy times it could generate more revenue but during the non busy times it could actually reduce revenue by causing people that share to go elsewhere.
BTW another way restaurants all over deal with opportunity costs during busy times is how they handles seating. During a slow time if a party of two walks in and all the two seat tables are taken they will most likely get seated at a larger table. During a busy time some places hold the line and will only seat a party of two at a table for two. I remember back in the pre kid days when we would put our name in at the front and then watch as parties of 4 came in after us and got seated before us. We had to wait for a 2 person table to open up. This is another way that the places manage the opportunity cost of empty seats during busy times.
The upside for Disney, at least from our family, is that they will probably get MORE money from us at that meal than by not allowing us to share, because of the probability that we will order an extra appetizer and/or extra dessert to share, since we will not be stuffed from each having their own entree!
We get a more enjoyable meal, they get at least what we would have spent, and probably more. They have now satisfied another family in that restaurant that otherwise may have left unhappy. The non-tangible benefit is that this family may become repeat visitors for years to come. There is a possibility of thousands of dollars of revenue being generated by the simple act of bringing an extra plate. The minute extra labour cost could be considered advertising.
And please let me stop you there. What I asked was what was the upside for Disney (period), not with regard to any one family ("you"). That is critical, for the reasons the Pedler outlined above. Disney is really good at this. They know their customers very well -- all of their customers. They know whether your personal behaviors mirror that of the vast majority of their guests or not.
Why would you discount everything else I had to say because of my opening sentence?
Allow me to rephrase:
The upside for Disney is the increased revenue from the additional items the guests may order that they would not ordinarily purchase. The biggest benefit is clearly the goodwill they have created with a satisfied guest. That goodwill can create repeat guests and new guests from the positive word of mouth advertising from those very happy consumers.
So the question reduces down to the difference between the upside you assert and the downside Pedler asserts (the opportunity costs). Disney has vast amounts of data and expertise in making that determination, of course, so I suspect Pedler is correct with his assessment.
Yes, but in order for Pedler's lost opportunity data to be valid, we have to assume that EVERYONE at EVERY table orders an appetizer, entre, dessert and drink. That is simply not the case. Many diners do not order apps and/or dessert. Many diners chose to drink water because it is their preferred drink (as I do). Many diners never, ever, order dessert when they eat out. What is the restaurant going to do, ask every patron what they plan to order before they get inside, and if the check isn't big enough turn them away???
The restaurant cannot force someone to order a 3 course meal, therefore, there is lost opportunity at each and every table, regardless of whether they have shared an entree or not.
Point is, if somebody orders an appetizer and desset instead of an entre the likelihood is that the cheque total stays roughly the same (depending on the restaurant, of course). While there may be lost opportunity, it does not automatically equate to lost revenue.
The restaurant cannot force someone to order a 3 course meal, therefore, there is lost opportunity at each and every table, regardless of whether they have shared an entree or not.
Point is, if somebody orders an appetizer and desset instead of an entre the likelihood is that the cheque total stays roughly the same (depending on the restaurant, of course). While there may be lost opportunity, it does not automatically equate to lost revenue.
The key thing here is the balancing act that any business does between customer satisfaction and maximizing profits. While we would all like to think that the goal is to maximize customer satisfaction in reality it isn't.
Places will state that of course but the really goal is to increase profits. CRT is the classic example. They took a 1 TS place and made it a 2 TS place for all meals. Many people here at the DIS said they wouldn't go there at the current pricing structure, i.e. unsatisfied customers and potential customers, yet Disney has kept the pricing structure. I would guess that what happened is they tracked how many reservations they were turning away and concluded that by increasing the price it would reduce demand but not to the point where they would generate less profit under the new pricing. It may not seem very Disney like but in essence Disney has reduced the opportunity for some kids to have a meal with Cinderella to increase the profits they make.
One other point is the concept of repeat business as it relates to places like WDW. It is true that the acquisition costs for a new customer is typically higher than a repeat customer. However for restaurants the definition of a repeat customer typically would be someone that goes there a few times a year. Ideally you want a large portion of your customers to be repeat customers so you can reduce your marketing spending. However WDW is a bit different. By definition almost all ( and in the parks it is all) of the customers are also customers of the parks. It is the marketing of the parks that brings in the potential customers. Then of course they have the option to eat elsewhere if they choose. Thus the Magical Express to remove transportation options and the dinning plan to pre sell the meals. I don't think the restaurants at Disney are relying on the same people to eat there 4-5 times a year. They also have a captive market with the DDP. The marketing model for the restaurants at WDW is significantly different than your normal restaurant. Just think about ADRs. How many places do you know that regularly take reservations 180 days in advance for anything but holiday meals?
Exactly. That is why I don't think you will see plate charges or sharing stopped at many places. You also have to take a look at how filled the places are consistently, not just the peak hours of the day. My guess is that on average they have capacity at most of the restaurants more hours than those that they are running at peak capacity if you take into account the whole year.
My point was that most business evaluate this type of situation in terms of opportunity cost not actual cost. For that to come into play there has to be a lost opportunity. As you pointed out in many cases there may not be lost opportunity with sharers unless you can fill that seat with a customer that will generate more profit.
However as I just pointed out with CRT they obviously felt the data supported the opposite and the in essence made that a fixed price no sharing venue. As Lewisc pointed out they may do that with some other places as well.
Actually they can. Its called a buffet or a fixed price menu and Disney has quite a few of them.
I was actually going to qualify that in my post, but figured that option was fairly obvious, and since it is a set price menu there is no sharing anyway so the point is moot.
I think that is how they would implement it. Having a plate fee or just telling someon that they can't share can cause confrontation with CM's and Disney seems to seek to avoid that.
I honestly don't see Disney doing away with sharing all together. I can see them at select places implementing a policy that in essence does the same thing.
Share this page
-
What's Your Ultimate Indulgent Disney Springs Snack?
-
See 3 New Loungefly Backpacks Coming Soon to Your Collection
-
Tiana's Bayou Adventure Full Ride-Through at Magic Kingdom in WDW
-
Indulge With This Refreshing Disney Parks Mint Julep Recipe
-
Record-Breaking 'Moana 2' Trailer Reaches 178M Views On First Day
GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
