Is the "problem" that DVC is a CRO Bust?

[BWV Dreamin]

Buyer's and even current members, need to understand what they purchased. And how that differs from renting a hotel room. DVC is consistently delivering on what we purchased, in my view.

Now I agree that many of these changes are not to my liking. But increases in charges for tickets and extra housekeeping, while not welcomed are expected as costs increase. I have been surprised that housekeeping charges have not increased on a more regular basis.

DDP changes should be no surprise if you watched how people use the plan. Just casual observation made it clear that the design and operation of the DDP were not in synch.

In some respects I trust that DVC is making decisions based on experience on a much broader scale than any of us have. Hopefully they continue to focus on the overlap of guest satisfaction and profitable operations.

I understood what I purchased, changes are inevitable. It would just be nice to have some time to work within the current system before such major changes are implemented. And I am not talking about ticket prices, but fundamental changes.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

I understood what I purchased, changes are inevitable. It would just be nice to have some time to work within the current system before such major changes are implemented. And I am not talking about ticket prices, but fundamental changes on which this timeshare was founded on.

I am not meaning to sound snarky (as starbox would say), but what fundamental changes to DVC have occured, other than the crackdown on commercial renters and the no smoking policy? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm not sure what you are referring to.

 

[crisi]

Agreed... Disney knows what they are doing. And don't overlook anything... everything is calculated and very well planned...

They overlook a LOT of things. And they don't always well plan. That they redid Journey To Imagination twice in a very short time frame is a case in point. Living Seas has been redone twice in a relatively short timeframe. Remember - what was it? go.com? Isn't there a POP area still looking like concrete bunkers after six years, or did they finally finish them? Like all corporations, they are run by people who make mistakes, people who have agendas, and sometimes people who are interested in the short term quarterly profit numbers rather than what will be the most benefit to the company over the long term. If Disney knew what they were doing, they wouldn't have been such a dog in the stock market for so many years.

The Disney of the early Eisner years, and the Disney of the late Walt years, were corporations of beauty - well oiled machines that usually made very good corporate decisions. But the post Walt years were not. And the late Eisner years were not.

When they start adding their guests into the mix, with unpredictable behavior patterns, and the communications power of us all telling each other how to get the "best use" out of Disney resources, they are working with a bunch of unknowns. Its possible that ten years ago, the DDP could have remained as was - and some people would have used "flexible" credits - but the costs would have been manageable and Disney wouldn't have changed it. If they hadn't made a mistake, they wouldn't have changed it - maybe recosted for inflation - but not changed the character of credits.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I am not meaning to sound snarky (as starbox would say), but what fundamental changes to DVC have occured, other than the crackdown on commercial renters and the no smoking policy? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm not sure what you are referring to.

I saw this coming after my post Well, the deed extension really bothers me. I don't feel we as members are or will get the necessary information needed to make a sound decision. When I was making my II search, only during the phone conversation was I told the ressie's would be automatic as of July 1. I have yet to determine if the new banking changes will affect how I must use my points. The ink is barely dry on my add on, but I haven't been given any correspondence on the changes or proposed changes. Yes, change is good, but some consistency is comforting.

 

[Sammie]

DDP changes should be no surprise if you watched how people use the plan. Just casual observation made it clear that the design and operation of the DDP were not in synch.

Extremely well said.

 

[Sammie]

This is one thing I don't really understand. If someone on the dining plan treats someone who isn't on the plan to a meal, a meal credit is still being used, isn't it? I mean, whether I eat two meals, or I eat one and a friend eats another, it's not like any extra food has been used, and two credits have been taken from the plan's allotment. There's no extra expense involved that I can see, so why the big "prohibition?"

Especially with quick serve meals: how can such abuse be prevented anyway? Usually, in my group, only one person goes up to order the meals while the others hunt down a table -- so how would the cashier know whether the three quick serve meals I'm ordering (for example) are only going to be consumed by people actually on the dining plan or not? And what difference would it make?

I'm not advocating this, mind you. I'm just wondering what the issue is.

Ok think of it like this, when you are on a cruise or stay at all inclusive resort you, as a guest who has paid the fee to get this package are entitled to certain number of meals.

However someone down the beach at Motel X is not. They did not pay the fees to the company that owns the resort that is serving the meal that allows you access to the meal plan. It is all part of a package of which they did not partipate.

While I agree it is still a meal eaten, what is lost, is lost opportunity. They want your friend to stay with them also and pay the fees to get the plan. Because believe me paying rack rate and the ticket purchase to get the dining plan is a huge part of its success.

And if your friend is not going to pay the necessary fees, which in this case, is rack rate, and tickets, then they want her to pay full price out of pocket for her meal.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

I'm not going to chime in on the DDP conversation but on the older CRO one instead. I would never pay for a DVC unit at the rates they are asking. You don't get the same benefits a DVC member does, you don't get the same benefits other guests staying at a true deluxe do yet you get to pay some pretty hefty rates. Fix that discrepancy and you might get a solid rate of cash bookings to support member trade outs.

How do you fix it? Give cash guests something unique while permitting DVC'ers to buy it for a small fee. Maybe a concierge-like service in one of the buildings over in SSR...perhaps the one with the model units so you can pitch DVC at the same time. Or allow cash guests access to the same spa discount DVC'ers have. Free horse and buggy rides. A special happy hour over at the Turf Club with coupon discounts for cash guests.

 

[salmoneous]

It may well be irksome...BUT...

when behavior that was always prohibited (although admitedly abetted by many Disney CMs back in 2005)

Jim,

Go back and reread my post. I was talking about adults using meals bought at a child's price. Since you are talking about the 2007 incident, you seem to be confusing different issues.

Using meals bought at a child's price was not prohibited back in 2005. Feel free to call 'em like you see 'em, but get your facts straight.

 

[pilferk]

I know I should just let this go, but……

Many of us believe that the ability to use at least some credits bought at a child's price for adult meals fell not just under the letter of the rules, but also under the spirit of the rules. I believe having the kids eat elsewhere while Mom and Dad use their credits for a Signature Dinner is something Disney anticipated; the rules were specifically crafted to allow it. Those folks who did so were *not* cheating the system, but using it as intended.

Other people disagree about the intent/spirit of the program. It was debated to death back then - no need to relive that debate. But it's a bit irksome to hear behavior that was within the rules of the program, that was actively encouraged by Disney employees administering the program and that may or may not have been within the spirit of the program called "cheating".

I HATE revisiting this issue, and I have no strong feelings about it, but:

The 2006 brochure (and I've been told the 2005 brochure but I don't have it so...I'll take peoples word for it..anyone have a scan of it?) were VERY clear that child credits were to be used to order children's meals off the kids menus. Those were "The rules". Posted and published by Disney.

The system, on the other hand, was completely unable to handle that distinction. That fact came out here, and amongst the CM's. It was a "work around"...I'm not sure I'd call it cheating, but it was certainly circumnavigating the posted rules. Cm's encouraged it, customers told other customers, etc. But the fact of the matter is...doing this was NOT in the scope of the plan, or part of it's intended use.

So, when Disney figured out how to fix it..they did.

Now, am I going to sit here an vilify those that used the "work around"? No, absolutely not....especially not when CM's were shouting the fact to anyone that would listen. BUT I'm also not going to say it was either within the "letter" (it clearly wasn't) or the "spirit" (which is arguable) of the rules, at least by 2006 (when it was STILL going on).

I recognize people's opinions are going to differ, and I'll not continue to argue the point.

 

[JimMIA]

Jim,

Go back and reread my post. I was talking about adults using meals bought at a child's price. Since you are talking about the 2007 incident, you seem to be confusing different issues.

Using meals bought at a child's price was not prohibited back in 2005. Feel free to call 'em like you see 'em, but get your facts straight.

We're talking about two different things, Sal.

The situation I was referring to did not involve child's credits for adult meals. It involved getting a room at the Pop at rack rate to get FREE DDP, and then putting a son in a discounted room and paying for his meals with DDP from the rack-rate room. That kind of "treating" has been prohibited from the start of DDP.

Some will say, "But that's MY meal credit, what difference does it make who eats the food?" The answer is twofold: 1) when a guest feeds five people with four credits (which this person did for their entire trip), they're stealing one person's meals, and 2) DDP is the Disney Dining Plan, and it goes by their rules whether a guest agrees with those rules or not.

It has never been permissible to purchase meals for people who weren't on the plan, but it's been the second-most frequent type of abuse and Disney still obviously doesn't have a good handle on it, despite all their efforts. It's also probably one of the primary reasons why they dropped the appetizer from DDP for 2008.

I didn't spell out all of the facts or post a link to the thread because my purpose was not to embarrass another DVC owner here, but the thread is not hard to find.

And it's definitely a case where we need one of your paintball guns (which I still think is one of the best ideas I've seen on the DIS in a long time!)

 

[tomandrobin]

WOW!!! This thread is as good of a read as one of those refillable mug debates!

Interesting all of the different interpitations of the same rules!

I'm just gonna keep out of this one...lol.

 

[salmoneous]

The 2006 brochure (and I've been told the 2005 brochure but I don't have it so...I'll take peoples word for it..anyone have a scan of it?) were VERY clear that child credits were to be used to order children's meals off the kids menus. Those were "The rules". Posted and published by Disney.

I think you may want to take another look at that 2006 brochure. I bet you won't even find the words "child credit" anywhere it in, which makes it pretty hard for it to be clear that "child credits" have to be used to order children's meals off the kids menu.

If you folks are going to call folks liars and cheats, at least have the facts on your side. Please, feel free to post the brochure and point out where it talks about child credits and how they are to be used.

There is room to debate what the spirit or intent of the plan was. But the published rules were what they were. And nowhere in those rules did it claim what you are claiming.

 

[salmoneous]

We're talking about two different things, Sal.

In your initial post you talked about both adults who used credits paid for at a child's price and people who bought meals for others. I didn't have a problem with anything you said about buying meals for others. But you called adults using credits bought at a child's price cheaters. That was irksome.

In hindsight, I should have just let it go. Nevermind.

 

[pilferk]

I think you may want to take another look at that 2006 brochure. I bet you won't even find the words "child credit" anywhere it in, which makes it pretty hard for it to be clear that "child credits" have to be used to order children's meals off the kids menu.

If you folks are going to call folks liars and cheats, at least have the facts on your side. Please, feel free to post the brochure and point out where it talks about child credits and how they are to be used.

There is room to debate what the spirit or intent of the plan was. But the published rules were what they were. And nowhere in those rules did it claim what you are claiming.

http://brianandrobbie.com/wdw/MYWDining.pdf

At the end of each description (TS and CS) you'll find the following disclaimer:

"Guests ages 3-9 must order from a children’s menu where available."

The exact wording from our "addendum" to the 2006 brochure (in other words, the piece you got with the brochure when you ordered the vacation planning kit):

2006 Pricing:
38.99 Adult
10.99 Children (Age 3 - 9)*

*Children ages 3 - 9 must choose from a children's menu if available.



That looks pretty clear to me.

Allow me to also point you to the DISboards FAQ on the '06 DDP:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1023429

Can I pay for my child's meal and use their TS credit for another adult meal?
Sorry, meal entitlements can not be shared between adults and children age 3-9.

And the coup de grace...from the link to the brochure above (at brian and robbie's site)...at the bottom in the FAQ section:

Q. Can adults use child meal entitlements?
A. Sorry, meal entitlements can not be shared between adults and children age 3-9.

Which I don't think could be ANY clearer.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

WOW!!! This thread is as good of a read as one of those refillable mug debates!

Interesting all of the different interpitations of the same rules!

I'm just gonna keep out of this one...lol.

I think it's time for me to bow out of this one. I've learned not to argue with crisi... unless I have a hankering for humble pie.

 

[Sammie]

The difference in the previous plan which allowed for liberal use, was simply what was stated and what actually happened were not the same. So the intent was certainly there, but the enforcement was not.

To most it was very clear that if you purchase something that charges a child's price, and states that one must purchase a child's meal for that price, that never was that protion to be used for anything other than a child's meal.

You would not go to McDonald's and order a kid's meal and expect them to hand over you a Big Mc combo. It would not happen. And if some reason some lower level employee actually did that, it would make it right or mean that is what corporate McDonald's meant for you to get.

Disney took care of it though, and the reason being abuse, so that it inself explains the problem.

End of story.

 

[LindaBabe]

I wish DVC management would read this post!

Rob - Normally, I agree with just about everything you say. However, I can assure you that my being upset with this most recent $95 fee has absolutely nothing to do with "DVC entitlement syndrome" or "perk mania".

It has to do with this new fee being symptomatic of a larger DVC problem for us.

It has to do with DVC being more about recruiting new members than servicing their existing ones. And I don't care if my Cell Phone Provider or Cable company does the same thing.

It has to do more with them being worried about finding cash flow solutions for CRO reservations than worrying about shrinking DVC availability windows (hence causing more members to look for WDW non-DVC resort options).

It has to do with DVC housekeeping and maintenence problems, among others (hey, did it ever occur to them that maybe those might be some reasons guests don't want to pay the high DVC rates through CRO?).

It's about changing DVC policies rather than addressing the real issues. We can't hire enough Mousekeepers (because we won't pay them enough) so we'll just change the check in policy to AFTER 4:00. That ought to leave it open enough to stave off complaints. Frankly, I'm tired of the "anonymous" phone calls at 7:00 AM and/or the repeated knocks on the door before 11:00 AM.

It's about refusing to upgrade their computer systems to eliminate rental abuse and waitlist problems as well as the ability to properly track Developer Points.

It's about properly training the Member Service/CM staff so that it doesn't require multiple phone calls to finally get someone that knows the correct answer.

It's about out-sourcing jobs to 3rd parties who could care less about Magic. The recent problem of charging members for Valet parking and what it took to get it resolved is a good example.

Disney markets the heck out of the "Disney Difference" and "Disney Magic"... an image carefully crafted by Disney over generations to reflect quality service and standards that has served their bottom line very well. An image that was very strategically created to tap into the emotional Disney response that began during most people's childhood. Heck, the Disney Institute used to TRAIN other companies on their infamous Disney Service.

Sorry if their maketing plans were successul and people ended up investing emotionally and financially into the spin. Sorry if members/guests want to hold them accountable to the standards that they didn't mind using to get people to sign on the dotted line and that Disney used to willingly hold themselves to.

If we shouldn't "expect" any more from a Disney timeshare than any other timeshare, then I guess we all could have saved a few grand with less expensive timeshare options. Would people be so willing to defend any other timeshare company where people had the same concerns?

So yes, this $95 fee may or may not impact most members and should or should not be considered a perk. There are arguments on both sides. The same could be said for the new Banking Rules. We actually benefited due to the change, but I feel terrible for those that it hurt. So what's next? At the current rate of change, anything is possible.

We love DVC. We really do. We wish we'd done it sooner. We would just like to make sure it's the same Disney Vacation Club that we will end up leaving for our children and grandchildren.

 

[salmoneous]

And the coup de grace...from the link to the brochure above (at brian and robbie's site)...at the bottom in the FAQ section:

Q. Can adults use child meal entitlements?
A. Sorry, meal entitlements can not be shared between adults and children age 3-9.

Which I don't think could be ANY clearer.

I agree that this wording changed the rules of the plan. Interestingly, this wording *isn't* in my version of the 2006 brochure. Apparently it was added sometime around late June / early July 2006 (I found some posts on the DIS from July 2006 talking about the "new wording.")

But, before that, there was no such rule. I know many of you feel the intent was clear. I disagree. No need to rehash the intent arguments.

 

[Tigger031266]

Let me put a positive spin on this

I think the $95 is simply because hotel costs (for everyone) are going through the going way up. Just like DVC told us they would. Why should DVC people staying at WDW hotels not have to pay more as well.

This is why we should all feel real happy we bought in. Our costs will be much lower long term.

So what don't stay at Poly, GF and the Pop Centry. Stay at BWV, SSR, AKL, VWL, OKW and BCV. I think our hotels are better anyway!!!

 

[pilferk]

I agree that this wording changed the rules of the plan. Interestingly, this wording *isn't* in my version of the 2006 brochure. Apparently it was added sometime around late June / early July 2006 (I found some posts on the DIS from July 2006 talking about the "new wording.")

But, before that, there was no such rule. I know many of you feel the intent was clear. I disagree. No need to rehash the intent arguments.

I'm not going to argue either way...I just have no strong feelings on the subject.

However, I would just point out that the file date on the above linked pdf is 5/9/2006. You can check the properties on it easily enough. So everything in that file was "done"/"changed"/"modified" before that date. Whether it was made public at that point, or 6 weeks later, or what...I don't know (or really care). I'm not sure, in this case, if the file date would be the ORIGINAL creation date, or the date it was created in it's current location.