Ninja Poodles Local

« November 2007 | Main | February 2008 »

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 06:33:09

Do I Agree With "Banning" Children? In This Case, YES.

I just posted my "review" of the fabulous (AAA 5-diamond rated) Victoria & Albert's restaurant, located in Disney World's Grand Floridian Resort and Spa, in Orlando, over on my personal blog.  Check it out, if you're considering a trip to Orlando sometime in 2008--it's well worth the necessary 180-days-in-advance reservation and the hefty price tag per meal.

But there is another reason that Victoria & Albert's has been buzzworthy among travel-bloggers this month, and that is due to Disney World's recent (and in my opinion, good and proper) decision to "ban" children under the age of 10 from the restaurant.  The howls of protest went up all over the internet, but interestingly to me, they all seemed to be from people who had never actually been to the restaurant.  Disney World has 97 OTHER fine restaurants to choose from, so why anyone would get upset at not being able to take their young child to a 3-hour, 7-course, $125-per-person (minimum) dinner is beyond me.

I think that the disappointment of the protesters is ill-placed in this instance, having just returned from a Disney World vacation last month, which included an amazing anniversary dinner at Victoria & Albert’s. As I said in the post on my own blog, I cannot imagine ANYONE wanting to bring a child of any age to this particular restaurant, when there are 97 other restaurants to choose from, including several in the resorts themselves!

Honestly: Our meal, for the two of us, cost around $400 with gratuity (thank you, Mom-In-Law for the anniversary gift!)–and we do not even drink.  I can only imagine the cost if you include wine pairings with each course, and/or other drinks.  The seatings last about 3 hours, with lengthy pauses between each of the 7 formal courses (and the 2 or 3 “mini” courses like the amuse bouche, coffee, and final sweets). It’s so quiet you could hear a pin drop, even with the gentle harp music. The food is very upscale, and caters to a far more sophisticated palate than children have. Seriously–take a look at the menu, and imagine the response of the typical kid. Our daughter likes a lot of different foods, and we do frequently expose her to "finer" dining and new things, but there is nothing that we ate that night that she would have enjoyed–not even the desserts.

I think that Disney World has done all their patrons, especially the children, a favor with this rule, and I even wish they’d extend it farther, not necessarily with more “bannings,” but perhaps with some warnings/guidelines about some of their other upscale restaurants’ suitability for young children. For example, The California Grill atop the Contemporary Resort was splendid for us, but as I looked around the dining room at the many children who were there, including our daughter, it was plain to see that they were antsy and miserable after the first hour, and that meal is designed to go on a long time, too, being built around the fireworks shows. It’s not about not knowing how to behave–our daughter is very well-mannered at restaurants–it’s a question of what is appropriate to require of a young child.

Our daughter was much happier staying in our rooms at the Grand Floridian with her grandmommy, eating chicken-noodle soup and sandwiches from room service in her bathrobe and slippers, than she would have been with us that night, believe me.

I suspect that most, if not all, of the people who are getting up in arms over this move by Disney Resorts have never set foot inside Victoria & Albert’s. Give it a try–it’s a memorable experience that you’ll recall fondly for a long time, and you’ll quickly see why it’s “not for kids.”

Posted by Belinda at 06:33 AM | Permalink | Comments [3]

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 16:24:15

"Off" Target?

With one e-mail to one consumer, Target may have just stepped in a big pile of internet poo.  In this day and age, it's difficult to imagine any giant corporation who does not understand the neck-breaking speed with which our extreme connectivity allows stories to go "viral," and spread like wildfire.  Many companies even use this phenomenon in a savvy manner, to their advantage.  In any case, it's hard to imagine that they would be unaware of the danger of riling up the blogging world.

But apparently, they (or at least the poor sap who wrote the offending e-mail) are just that clueless.  It all started with a poorly-thought-out billboard ad featuring a woman in a spread-eagle pose over the Target logo, with the "bullseye" squarely centered beneath her crotch. That, in itself, shows a certain level of...well, something.  It's hard to believe that someone in some marketing meeting didn't look at that image and say, "Um, are you kidding with this?"  If it's supposed to be subtle, it missed the mark (HAR), and if it's supposed to be overt, then it's rather offensive.  But as you'll see, the original issue is not even the issue any more.


One blogger, Amy Jussel, wrote about the ad campaign, and her concern about the message this type of advertising, especially from a "family friendly" company like Target, conveys.  The response she got was...well, you be the judge:

“Good Morning Amy,

Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets. This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.

Once again thank you for your interest, and have a nice day.”

Wow.  Kinda makes you wonder who, exactly, Target thinks their "core guest" is, doesn't it?  And with a dis like that, could anyone predict any response OTHER than having this message sent all over the world a million times at the speed of light?  By noon today, I had seen literally dozens of references to this story just among my own Twitter contacts.  And for every "Tweet," there was a blog post.  Usually not a good one.  The original message, one of concern over the billboard, has been almost completely lost amongst the greater cry of "Target hates bloggers."  Previously faithful Target customers are echoing, in droves, my Twitter-bud Julia Roy's proclamation that "Target is dead to me."  Strong words.

What's fascinating to me about Target's cluelessness in this matter is how positive Target's blogger-buzz was before this, especially among women.  Hardly a day went by that someone I knew wasn't referencing, online, a shopping spree at Target, in glowing terms.  Just YESTERDAY I had a comment left on my blog recommending a product at Target in response to one of my posts.

I'm expecting some PR back-pedaling by Target ASAP, but heck, they've really surprised me so far.  What are the odds that, a week from now, they'll still be convinced that their "core guest" (I'm remembering that terminology the next time I invite someone over, and charging them for any amenities received in my home) is not connected to "non-traditional media?"

Posted by Belinda at 04:24 PM | Permalink | Comments [14]