No Longer Affordable JMHO

[eliza61]

Just look on the boards here at restaurant reviews. On our last trip, I was considering the Rose and Crown, and time and time again the reviews come back "It's a great restaurant becuase it's a great place to watch Illuminations from." Well I'm sorry, that tells me NOTHING about the food. What it DOES tell me is that enough people will pay for a crappy meal if they get something else out of it, whether that is an expensive seat for fireworks or seeing a character ot two for 2 minutes.

I'm not even saying that those choices are wrong, as if they feel happy about their choices, who am I to argue. But with enough people paying top dollar for meals because of fireworks seatings or character meet-ups, why should Disney change a thing?

My favorite is the constant refrain you get for Le Cellier. "The best tasting soup, I've ever eaten". Which would be great if I went to a steakhouse for soup but I always wondered why everyone raved about the soup and never the steak. Then I went and totally understood why the soup was the headliner.

Wishing every one spectacular meals at Disney, no matter how you define that!

 

[Disney Dad Canada]

My favorite is the constant refrain you get for Le Cellier. "The best tasting soup, I've ever eaten". Which would be great if I went to a steakhouse for soup but I always wondered why everyone raved about the soup and never the steak. Then I went and totally understood why the soup was the headliner.

Wishing every one spectacular meals at Disney, no matter how you define that!

Again, that's a very personal review. Personally, I thought everything was amazing at Le Celier; the soup, the steak, and the dessert. I have yet to try other signature restaurants at Disney, so I can't really compare steaks there to other restaurants on property, but I thought I got more than my moneys worth.

I think some of the differences in reviews comes from just how often you eat at restaurants when you're not on vacation. For me, a widowed Dad with 3 kids, I would much rather choose ordering a pizza or going out to a mall food court when I'm home. My Disney trip is my one shot a year at "fine dining".

 

[bicker]

I didn't say I saw anything missing from WDW's food options. I was commening on the posts stating that other venues (ball parks, one-day theme parks) have worse dining options at higher prices. My point was that if WDW expects people to spend an entire week onsite, they need to do better than those places

No they don't. They just have to do what would be best for their owners. And the other venues provide insight into how incremental amounts of market-captivity affect pricing.

I'm not sure how else to explain it. Perhaps someone else could take a crack at it.

- and they do.

Regardless. The distinction between this and the above is that whether Disney does "do better" is a matter of personal opinion, while what Disney "needs to do" is not. It's important to draw that distinction, because many people in this thread disagree with us about our assertion that "they do".

 

[maxiesmom]

The reason is because enough people pay for the meals with the crappy eggs, so there is no incentive for Disney to change.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe those of you who think the food is crappy are in the minority? We all know that people are more vocal when they are upset than when they are happy. I, and my whole family, are more than happy with the quality of food we have eaten at WDW. The only complaint I can remember in more than a dozen trips was from me. About the food at the ABC Commisary.

I bet all you people complaing about the food quality are the minority. No numbers to back this up, just the known fact that people are more apt to complain than compliment.

 

[goofyintoronto]

My favorite is the constant refrain you get for Le Cellier. "The best tasting soup, I've ever eaten". Which would be great if I went to a steakhouse for soup but I always wondered why everyone raved about the soup and never the steak. Then I went and totally understood why the soup was the headliner. >>I didnt enjoy the steak OR soup at Le Cellier! I've had far better steak & soup in my hometown. I still dont understand the hype about this place? But thats a different arguement!

The reason is because enough people pay for the meals with the crappy eggs, so there is no incentive for Disney to change.

Personally, I refuse to go to any Disney restaurant for breakfast, character meal or not. $30 per person for $1 worth of food? Anyone who runs a restaurant will tell you that breakfast is the biggest money maker for them.

Just look on the boards here at restaurant reviews. On our last trip, I was considering the Rose and Crown, and time and time again the reviews come back "It's a great restaurant becuase it's a great place to watch Illuminations from." >>Lol, so true!! I've noticed that as well. But I can honestly say that I thought the food was pretty darn good. And I didnt have a view of illuminations! Well I'm sorry, that tells me NOTHING about the food. What it DOES tell me is that enough people will pay for a crappy meal if they get something else out of it, whether that is an expensive seat for fireworks or seeing a character ot two for 2 minutes.

I'm not even saying that those choices are wrong, as if they feel happy about their choices, who am I to argue. But with enough people paying top dollar for meals because of fireworks seatings or character meet-ups, why should Disney change a thing?

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe those of you who think the food is crappy are in the minority? We all know that people are more vocal when they are upset than when they are happy. I, and my whole family, are more than happy with the quality of food we have eaten at WDW. The only complaint I can remember in more than a dozen trips was from me. About the food at the ABC Commisary.

I bet all you people complaing about the food quality are the minority. No numbers to back this up, just the known fact that people are more apt to complain than compliment.>>I have to agree with you, and I wonder the same thing. Ppl are more likely to speak up when they've had a bad meal. Out of all my trips, the only bad meals i've had at Disney was at Tony's. All others were pretty great! Ok maybe not all. Chef Mickeys (BF) & 1900 PF (dinner) were pretty crappy meals, I have to admit. But they werent nearly as bad as Tony's. I suppose I would give CM & 1900 a 2nd chance. Besides these, all other meals were good.

 

[gina2000]

I think some of the differences in reviews comes from just how often you eat at restaurants when you're not on vacation. For me, a widowed Dad with 3 kids, I would much rather choose ordering a pizza or going out to a mall food court when I'm home. My Disney trip is my one shot a year at "fine dining".

I totally agree with you. I live in a major metropolitan area and have had the opportunity to dine at many, many fine restaurants. I've also dined at fabulous cheap joints and everything in between. That definitely colors what I want and what I'm willing to pay for it. And when I see value in a meal, I will pay whatever it costs. When I don't, I won't.

No they don't. They just have to do what would be best for their owners. And the other venues provide insight into how incremental amounts of market-captivity affect pricing.

I'm not sure how else to explain it. Perhaps someone else could take a crack at it.

Regardless. The distinction between this and the above is that whether Disney does "do better" is a matter of personal opinion, while what Disney "needs to do" is not. It's important to draw that distinction, because many people in this thread disagree with us about our assertion that "they do".

I agree with you. It's been such a zigzag with WDW, though, that I'm frustrated with the changes in their business model. They courted foodies in the 90s....and then basically destroyed the model. I realize it's in response to the economy. But I do think that WDW is still touting "fine dining" and it just ain't that for the most part anymore. Many of the restaurants that still are fine dining are not on the dining plan and aren't owned by WDW. That says something. I wonder how these restaurants are performing in this economy.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe those of you who think the food is crappy are in the minority? We all know that people are more vocal when they are upset than when they are happy. I, and my whole family, are more than happy with the quality of food we have eaten at WDW. The only complaint I can remember in more than a dozen trips was from me. About the food at the ABC Commisary.

I bet all you people complaing about the food quality are the minority. No numbers to back this up, just the known fact that people are more apt to complain than compliment.

I don't agree with you. Many, many people I know in real life find WDW to be underwhelming. They cite price and quality as two main factors in their decision not to come back. Quite frankly, when you have repeat perfomance visitors complaining, I think it's time to stand up and smell the coffee. The WDW balance sheet may be profitable now, but at what point does it matter that you've lost repeat customers who spread the word?

Here's a thread from the Community Board concerning change at WDW. And this is from people who love WDW.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2750706

 

[bicker]

It's been such a zigzag with WDW, though, that I'm frustrated with the changes in their business model.

Understandable, but I believe that that kind of frustration only happens among rabid fans, from who are no longer valuable in the consumer marketplace in the way they once were. We used to bring in significant new customers; that sort of thing doesn't happen enough anymore, so placating us now ends up being, more often than not, money pits that never yield adequate returns.

But I do think that WDW is still touting "fine dining" and it just ain't that for the most part anymore.

Service providers always sell their offerings with glowing characterizations. I've seen Applebee's and Macaroni Grill make qualitative claims that objective, informed reviewers might take issue with, but because they're qualitative claim it is the restaurant's word versus the reviewer's word.

 

[eliza61]

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe those of you who think the food is crappy are in the minority? We all know that people are more vocal when they are upset than when they are happy. I, and my whole family, are more than happy with the quality of food we have eaten at WDW. The only complaint I can remember in more than a dozen trips was from me. About the food at the ABC Commisary.

I bet all you people complaing about the food quality are the minority. No numbers to back this up, just the known fact that people are more apt to complain than compliment.

That's a hard one.

#1 I always say that I don't think of all complaints as being "upset". If some one ask me on these boards about a particular restaurant I try and give my honest opinion. when I say it's crappy I usually try to elaborate on specifically what I didn't like.

#2. Remember, these boards are roughly .5% the people who visit disneyworld annually and I tend to find that us dissers are almost phanatical about disneyworld. Sorry but imo, we are simply not objective. I travel alot and hang out on a lot of travel sites. disney gets away with stuff that would never fly in any other place. Not saying that's good or bad. it is what it is. Along with that as a general rule we are not tolerant of negative reviews. as a general rule, if you do write a negative review you will be told a) that it is your fault, you should have done your homework b) you expect way too much, disney is so special you should be kissing the ground for the honor of going or c) You are a grump. how dare you not be happy with a run down room, you are whining and it's a state of mind.

#3. I do think disney suffers from overblown expectations. That maybe a result of some great marketing. When you market your product with words like "magical", "once in a life time" " flagship" it may be that any thing you do will be a let down. Whenever I see a tv vacation with the parks totally empty and the little girl running into mickeys arms I laugh. The commercial doesn't tell you that, as a general rule, that ain't happening. It doesn't tell you that you may have to get up at the crack of dawn to get a totally empty park and htat they are a lot of small kids having meltdowns as opposed to running up to Mickey.

#4. This one is totally my "bad" habit. I unfortunately have a tendency to look at some things using the "back in the good ole days" filter. I do remember a time pre free dining or dining plan when restaurant offerings were better, where food quality was better and when you didn't have to go to a signature restaurant to eat great. Times have changed, so it is hard some times for me because I do remember when I could routinely get great meals at the world. some times it is hard for me when I review not to fall back on "it use to be"- itis.

#5 I don't know what the % of return visitiors vs. first time or one time visitors is but that may be a factor in the type of complaint you see. For many a trip to disneyworld may be a once in a life vacation. Here on the boards we get seriousl fans, we've been a number of times. Now If I'm a once in a life or first time visitor especially with young children you're emphasis may not be on food. My first visitor I barely even remember the food, I was on such a disney "high". It wasn't until after I became a dvc member that I began to notice a down hill trend. Even here on the dvc forums I noticed a trend of more of us are cooking more in our villas or are going offsite. we do discuss this trend and it's interesting. It's never really about the cost but always about the quality. Since we have more time (we know we'll be back) we may focus more onour meals than say a first timer.

 

[bicker]

#1 I always say that I don't think of all complaints as being "upset".

Clearly there are two things: I think we can probably agree on labels of "disappointment" for one thing, and "unsatisfied promise" for the other thing. Disappointment is internal - you effectively do it to yourself; an unsatisfied promise is imposed on you by an external force. They are not mutually exclusive, of course, but also one doesn't necessarily require the other.

Complaining about an unsatisfied promise makes perfect sense - I suspect to everybody. Someone is going to have to explain to me, though, what the logic is in complaining about being disappointed, when it is not a case of an unsatisfied promise. I just don't see that.

I suppose I could see the word "upset" fitting in with "disappointment" but I think a lot of people have a hard time making it clear that they're upset with themselves.

 

[gina2000]

Understandable, but I believe that that kind of frustration only happens among rabid fans, from who are no longer valuable in the consumer marketplace in the way they once were. We used to bring in significant new customers; that sort of thing doesn't happen enough anymore, so placating us now ends up being, more often than not, money pits that never yield adequate returns.

Service providers always sell their offerings with glowing characterizations. I've seen Applebee's and Macaroni Grill make qualitative claims that objective, informed reviewers might take issue with, but because they're qualitative claim it is the restaurant's word versus the reviewer's word.

Re your first comment I would agree with you except that WDW restaurants were servicing a large business as well as casual crowd locally. I wonder if business people have abandoned WDW as an entertainment spot. Losing that crowd has to hurt. Locals have complained on these boards loud and clear about the difficulty in getting casual reservations a few days in advance.

Also, the Swan and Dolphin bring in a lot of convention business - and those people in turn brought family with them. If the value falls too far below cost, these conventioneers will not bring family to enjoy the parks.

I agree that corporations make qualitative claims that are subjective in nature. I just don't believe that I don't have the right to make a substantially different claim on a public forum. Once the pixie dust clears, I'm still left with the bill. And I have to decide whether or not the experience is affordable and/or enjoyable verses other venues.

BTW, I wouldn't eat in an Applebees or Macaroni Grill on a bet. So if people are comparing WDW restaurants to these restaurants, then I certainly don't want to pay higher prices for the quality food being served at these venues.

 

[eliza61]

Clearly there are two things: I think we can probably agree on labels of "disappointment" for one thing, and "unsatisfied promise" for the other thing. Disappointment is internal - you effectively do it to yourself; an unsatisfied promise is imposed on you by an external force. They are not mutually exclusive, of course, but also one doesn't necessarily require the other.

Complaining about an unsatisfied promise makes perfect sense - I suspect to everybody. Someone is going to have to explain to me, though, what the logic is in complaining about being disappointed, when it is not a case of an unsatisfied promise. I just don't see that.

I suppose I could see the word "upset" fitting in with "disappointment" but I think a lot of people have a hard time making it clear that they're upset with themselves.

I think that maybe a draw back of "posting", you don't have the normal vocal cues that you get when speaking with a person.

But I do also think a bit of it is that we (dissers) tend to see any thing outside of a "sunshiney" review as an attack on some thing we love. We tend to take disney really, really personal and serious. Some times a complaint about being disappointed is really not a complaint but stating a preference.

This definitely happens to me. I made a comment on a review of sci fi one time. Dh & I don't particular like their ribs and mentioned that it may have been that they supposedly cook them using a coke based bbq sauce. As you can imagine this went over like a lead ballon here. I was amazed because I didn't say that they were "bad", I just said that I didn't like them. I wasn't mad, upset or even disappointed, some one asked how the food was and I simply said that I didn't like the ribs. Why that one statement was the internet equivalent of waving a red flag at a bull I don't know, I almost feel like we're not supposed to say we don't like some thing about disney here.

 

[jrtoastyman]

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe those of you who think the food is crappy are in the minority? We all know that people are more vocal when they are upset than when they are happy. I, and my whole family, are more than happy with the quality of food we have eaten at WDW. The only complaint I can remember in more than a dozen trips was from me. About the food at the ABC Commisary.

I bet all you people complaing about the food quality are the minority. No numbers to back this up, just the known fact that people are more apt to complain than compliment.

I don't purport to have the most refined palette in the world, but objectively speaking, I'm not sure how someone could dispute that the food there is just not great when compared to other places in (or near) that price point.

Strip the character meals out of the analysis because there you really are paying for the experience as much as the food and just focus upon the regular restaurants. If you live in a reasonably large city, the Disney food is not going to match up to restaurants that charge you $30+ for an entree. Frankly, some Disney restaurants won't even match up favorably with chain restaurants that come in well under that price point. Seems that a lot of the restaurants follow the Cheesecake Factory approach where they wow you with portion size, plus the last thing you eat is a great dessert, so you leave on a high note. Credit where credit is due, you can't say that Disney skimps in terms of the sheer volume of food that you get, so there's that.

I'm still very capable of enjoying a meal at a Disney restaurant because it is about the whole experience, but my enjoyment is often in spite of the food and not because of it.

 

[jrtoastyman]

BTW, I wouldn't eat in an Applebees or Macaroni Grill on a bet. So if people are comparing WDW restaurants to these restaurants, then I certainly don't want to pay higher prices for the quality food being served at these venues.

 

[Stinky_Pete]

No they don't. They just have to do what would be best for their owners. And the other venues provide insight into how incremental amounts of market-captivity affect pricing.

I'm not sure how else to explain it. Perhaps someone else could take a crack at it.

Regardless. The distinction between this and the above is that whether Disney does "do better" is a matter of personal opinion, while what Disney "needs to do" is not. It's important to draw that distinction, because many people in this thread disagree with us about our assertion that "they do".

As I said, my comment wasn't so much about "is WDW food affordable" as it was a response to PP who post, basically "I paid the same or more at such-and-such and the food was worse than at WDW".

Here's an example of why I think WDW has to do better than those venues:

Family is going to a ball game. "What should we do about supper?" "Oh, let's have hot dogs and soda in the stands. It'll be fun"

Familly is going to WDW for a week.
Day 1: "What should we do about lunch?" "Oh, let's have hot dogs and soda in the park. It'll be fun".
Day 1: "What should we do about supper?" "Oh, let's have hamburgers and soda in the park. It'll be fun."
Day 2: "What should we do about lunch?" "Oh, let's have hot dogs and soda in the park. It'll be fun". "But that's what we had yesterday." "You can have a hamburger instead." "We had hamburgers for supper last night." "Well that's all they have."
Day 2: "What should we do about lunch?" "Well, since all they have is hot dogs and hamburgers, you have a choice." "I am so sick of hot dogs and hamburgers. Why did we make the mistake to stay on site and not rent a car?"
Day 2: "What should we do about supper?" "I've got an idea: Let's rent a car for the rest of the week so we can go off site and have a decent meal! The amount of money we save will pay for the car! Maybe we can check out that Harry Potter land at Universal, or spend a day at Sea World. And remind me never to stay on site again because all they have to eat is hot dogs and hamburgers!"

And on their next visit to Orlando, the familiy stays off site. They don't visit the Disney parks every day of their vacation like they would if they stayed on site and didn't rent a car, and instead explore Universal and Sea World. No resort revenue for the mouse. Less theme park admission revenue for the mouse. Probably less in-park spending for the mouse.

So yes, I think WDW does need to do better in food service than a ball park or a place where a family might spend only one day. People would get very tired of limited/horrible/overpriced food very quickly, and would take their money elsewhere.

I think the same could be said for pricing the food too high. A day or two is not too bad. But a week of way overpriced food will drive more people off site. I am not saying I think the price has become outrageous across the board, but there are some things I won't pay for. $52 pp for Fantasmic lunch package for example...but other people evidently will.

 

[Disney Dad Canada]

I think the same could be said for pricing the food too high. A day or two is not too bad. But a week of way overpriced food will drive more people off site. I am not saying I think the price has become outrageous across the board, but there are some things I won't pay for. $52 pp for Fantasmic lunch package for example...but other people evidently will.

You are looking at this as an individual, whereas Disney is looking at this as a corporation. Your goals are diametrically opposed.

Your perfect day at the park would be completely empty, whereas Disney's perfect day at the park would be at capacity.

Again, it doesn't matter to Disney if a given individual goes elsewhere for food, or doesn't buy a souvenir. For Disney, it's the big picture. If the restaurants are at or near capacity at a given price, then that price is justified. The food quality doesn't matter one iota, as long as there are enough butts in seats.

You as an individual of course are free to go elsewhere, but as long as enough people put their butts in those seats and pull out their wallets to pay what Disney is asking, your arguements will fall on deaf ears.

 

[maxiesmom]

I don't purport to have the most refined palette in the world, but objectively speaking, I'm not sure how someone could dispute that the food there is just not great when compared to other places in (or near) that price point.

What I disagree with most is the statement that the food is crap. To me there is a big difference between not great and crap. I don't expect any buffet to have "great" food. However the buffets I have eaten at at WDW consistently have good food. Akershush, The Crystal Palace, Cape May Clambake--those places all have good food.

As I mentioned before, the only truly bad food I had was at the ABC Commisary. The breakfast sausage was so bad I couldn't put enough ketchup on it to make it edible. But that is one meal out of, oh I don't know, 60 or so.

 

[jrtoastyman]

So yes, I think WDW does need to do better in food service than a ball park or a place where a family might spend only one day. People would get very tired of limited/horrible/overpriced food very quickly, and would take their money elsewhere.

I think the same could be said for pricing the food too high. A day or two is not too bad. But a week of way overpriced food will drive more people off site. I am not saying I think the price has become outrageous across the board, but there are some things I won't pay for. $52 pp for Fantasmic lunch package for example...but other people evidently will.

Great point, and for what it is worth, this is a real phenomenon, not just a hypothetical example. As a matter of fact, while we're not exactly taking our business off-site in the way that you mean here, in the wake of a trip that included overpriced, underwhelming meal after overpriced, underwhelming meal, we're swearing off the dining plan and are going to make a conscious effort to eat in the parks less, generally speaking.

One example that I've used a couple of times on here was when some people in our party were hell bent on taking us all to Tutto Italia, but didn't bother to get ADRs for our party of 9 because they didn't understand how necessary they've become since their last visit. As a result, we were only able to get in at 2:45 in the afternoon on a day that we hadn't planned on being at EPCOT. We moved our schedule around and got there, only to have it be very average. My wife and I both agreed that had we known how pedestrian it was going to be, we would have kept our original plans and just eaten at a QS place or had a granola bar or something. It's one thing to have a disappointing, overpriced meal, but when, by virtue of the ADR system, you have to build your schedule around it and take significant time out of your day to do it, it really just feels like a kick in the gut.

Similarly, we ate at Pinnochio's place in MK one evening. I don't expect anything more from a QS place than quick, unpretentious food, but it just absolutely sucked, and given the choice between that and nothing at all, I would have chosen nothing at all (which is basically what I did after a couple of bites).

The new plan: breakfast in the room, and at least one other meal in the room either for lunch when we come back for our afternoon break, or for dinner before heading back out for the evening. We'll pick a couple of the better restaurants to do for a few meals while we're there, but generally speaking, we concluded that we could eat better food for less making it ourselves -- even if "making it" was assembling lunch meat between two slices of bread. So yeah, we're not exactly staying off site, but Uncle Walt is definitely going to get significantly less of our dining dollar this time around.

The irony is that my wife and I love to eat out when we're on vacation, and if the food were better, we'd relish the opportunity to try so many places as part of our trip. As it stands, though, most of the places are worth neither the cost nor the time associated with them. Better to think of food in the park as mere sustenance for a week and devote my attention to things I might actually enjoy.

 

[TGaines107]

Besides, all that "free" food is mostly filler. People fill up on salads, bread, mac n cheese, mashed potato, pasta, etc. All that stuff is cheap. Deserts aren't much more than flavored bread (cake), puddings, cookies & ice cream. Again, all cheap stuff to produce. That xookie probably costs about two cents. Whenever we do TS, I head straight for the meat. Thats all I want.

 

[bicker]

Re your first comment I would agree with you except that WDW restaurants were servicing a large business as well as casual crowd locally. I wonder if business people have abandoned WDW as an entertainment spot. Losing that crowd has to hurt.

Why? I've learned that "has to" without data to back it up often results in a surprise when the data is analyzed. Nothing "has to". The second- and third-order ramifications of how things are are so interdependent with each other that they cannot be predicted solely by gut-feel.

And even that is ignoring that you're making some assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

One thing we all should have learned about Disney after being such careful observers of them for so long: They don't do anything carelessly.

Locals have complained on these boards loud and clear about the difficulty in getting casual reservations a few days in advance.

Talk is cheap. Locals have to bring more money to the table than placating them would have cost, to justify addressing those complaints. There is "thickness" to that implication. It isn't enough for locals to be a valid market. It has to be much more lucrative to be worthwhile satisfying.

And again, that's still making some assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

Also, the Swan and Dolphin bring in a lot of convention business - and those people in turn brought family with them. If the value falls too far below cost, these conventioneers will not bring family to enjoy the parks.

And Disney knows all this, and has far better resources to track their progress in this regard than we do.

I agree that corporations make qualitative claims that are subjective in nature. I just don't believe that I don't have the right to make a substantially different claim on a public forum.

ITA: Both the claim and the counter-claim are equally valid and deserve equal attention and primacy.

BTW, I wouldn't eat in an Applebees or Macaroni Grill on a bet. So if people are comparing WDW restaurants to these restaurants, then I certainly don't want to pay higher prices for the quality food being served at these venues.

I mentioned them because they were substantially worse than most WDW restaurants, and yet they make similar claims to the one's you're upset about Disney making.

 

[bicker]

I made a comment on a review of sci fi one time. Dh & I don't particular like their ribs and mentioned that it may have been that they supposedly cook them using a coke based bbq sauce. As you can imagine this went over like a lead ballon here. I was amazed because I didn't say that they were "bad", I just said that I didn't like them. I wasn't mad, upset or even disappointed, some one asked how the food was and I simply said that I didn't like the ribs. Why that one statement was the internet equivalent of waving a red flag at a bull I don't know, I almost feel like we're not supposed to say we don't like some thing about disney here.

I can't speak for the folks who replied to your statement of preference. I know that I surely couldn't imagine taking you to task as apparently they did. There's a clear delineation between people's preferences, which are absolutely and unequivocally their own, and assessments of Disney's capability and performance, when they can be objectively compared to explicit promises made. People shouldn't be going at you for saying you don't like something.