DDP Rumor and affect on DVC Member Perceived Value

[pilferk]

How does it cost more to have the same staff work the same hours for the same wages and do twice the work..

It means more profit no matter how you look at it more volume in the same time = more profit for less cost

You can't cover 2x the volume with the same staff it takes to run x volume, unless x is, orignally, a VERY low number and you're overstaffed for that volume. You might be able to economize somewhat, but not THAT much. You just can't. That's why "normal" places staff up on Friday and Saturday nights.....it's when they do the most volume. If you tried to economize on that scale, you'd have bedlam from a service (and guest satisfation) standpoint.

Staffing patterns are something very near and dear to my heart, professionally. If I could get away with doing what you're suggesting, we'd just eliminate 1/2 our staff. But it just doesn't work quite that neatly. First, because there's only so much your staff can do and not have your customers suffer, and second because capacity is capacity.

Now, to be sure, there'd be SOME economy of scale (you wouldn't, likely, need double the total staff to handle double the customers). The question is (and nobody knows the answer to this...or no one who's going to talk about it anyway) does that economy of scale pay "enough" dividends to offset the discount. Both sides are going to have good arguments to support their POV....neither side is going to have much in the way of hard line proof.

 

[DBorges]

You can't cover 2x the volume with the same staff it takes to run x volume, unless x is, orignally, a VERY low number and you're overstaffed for that volume. You might be able to economize somewhat, but not THAT much. You just can't. That's why "normal" places staff up on Friday and Saturday nights.....it's when they do the most volume. If you tried to economize on that scale, you'd have bedlam from a service (and guest satisfation) standpoint.

Staffing patterns are something very near and dear to my heart, professionally. If I could get away with doing what you're suggesting, we'd just eliminate 1/2 our staff. But it just doesn't work quite that neatly. First, because there's only so much your staff can do and not have your customers suffer, and second because capacity is capacity.

Now, to be sure, there'd be SOME economy of scale (you wouldn't, likely, need double the total staff to handle double the customers). The question is (and nobody knows the answer to this...or no one who's going to talk about it anyway) does that economy of scale pay "enough" dividends to offset the discount. Both sides are going to have good arguments to support their POV....neither side is going to have much in the way of hard line proof.

Just well said.

 

[Chuck S]

If you have the DDP and want to eat in a PARK you need admission (this is true)

I did not say if you wanted to eat at a resort or downtown disny you needed park admission

But the point is, the same is true whether you have the DDP or not. It is your theory that the DDP increases park ticket sales. But again, this is only true if people buy the park ticket for the SOLE purpose of entering the park to dine.

You also said "They make there money and profit on volume ...

Only if the additional volume is sufficient to offset the additional expenses and loss of some profit on the individual meals."


If the said volume for a hour is say 20 people .. But that same volume doubles because you have more people there as a result of the ddp

How does it cost more to have the same staff work the same hours for the same wages and do twice the work..

It means more profit no matter how you look at it more volume in the same time = more profit for less cost

It is very unlikely that the DDP has actually doubled the volume throughout the year, isn't it? Except, perhaps, during the FREE dining promo. And if a restaurant did double their output, they would definately need additional employees...no way any business can double their product output without addtional personnel and other costs.

 

[hansel1]

Actually, when the first brochure went to press, a bunch of newbies panicked and started a bunch of threads freaking out because a LOT of restaurants were not in the brochure. Other people were counseling those folks to just relax, because the lineup would be the same. And sure enough, those wise souls were right.

Those wise souls from last year are the same people who are saying the rumors are right this year.

Technically the first brochure never went to press, it was instead put up on disney's website because they knew the other restuarants would sign agreements.

It was more than just newbies who were concerned and started rumors that non-disney owned restaurants WOULD NOT be included for 2007.

Those "wise souls" you mentioned were few and far between, as I was one of them.

Now, you have less than a handful of people (who enjoy trying to scoop others) claiming that rumors are more than that. And they are not the same "wise souls" from last year. This whole DDP rumor was started by DISserver.

As I mentioned before, once a rumor gets heard enough it becomes fact to most people. Then those people pronounce to other readers that they heard from a reliable source, etc., etc. . Not only do those people post threads here on the disboards, but they then branch out to other boards with NEWS about the changes for DDP.

I believe that the UK folks have been given information from their TAs. I don't believe that the information they were given could be related to DISNEY's official word on the matter for 2008 DDP. Virgin (as I've have only read here ) states that the RESORT gave them the information. Which resort is that?

It would be outright ridiculous for Disney to give anyone information 2 weeks ahead of their own official announcement. I believe that UK visitors are important to disney, but not any more or less important than any other visitor. As for UK visitors booking their vacations so far ahead, many US visitors do as well. I continually booked rooms a year and a half out before I bought into DVC.

 

[pilferk]

I believe that the UK folks have been given information from their TAs. I don't believe that the information they were given could be related to DISNEY's official word on the matter for 2008 DDP. Virgin (as I've have only read here ) states that the RESORT gave them the information. Which resort is that?

I don't know one way or the other (thought it would be just as out of character for Virgin to "announce" something they didnt' get directly from their vendor via the contracts they've signed), but I CAN speak to the particular point above.

The Walt Disney World Resort is a common reference to the entire complex, even used in some of Disney's official filings at times. I can certainly see Virgin using the "the resort" reference in that context. I realize each hotel refers to itself as a resort, too, but I don't think that's the reference Virgin is using.

 

[DBorges]

Technically the first brochure never went to press, it was instead put up on disney's website because they knew the other restuarants would sign agreements.

It was more than just newbies who were concerned and started rumors that non-disney owned restaurants WOULD NOT be included for 2007.

Those "wise souls" you mentioned were few and far between, as I was one of them.

Now, you have less than a handful of people (who enjoy trying to scoop others) claiming that rumors are more than that. And they are not the same "wise souls" from last year. This whole DDP rumor was started by DISserver.

As I mentioned before, once a rumor gets heard enough it becomes fact to most people. Then those people pronounce to other readers that they heard from a reliable source, etc., etc. . Not only do those people post threads here on the disboards, but they then branch out to other boards with NEWS about the changes for DDP.

I believe that the UK folks have been given information from their TAs. I don't believe that the information they were given could be related to DISNEY's official word on the matter for 2008 DDP. Virgin (as I've have only read here ) states that the RESORT gave them the information. Which resort is that?

It would be outright ridiculous for Disney to give anyone information 2 weeks ahead of their own official announcement. I believe that UK visitors are important to disney, but not any more or less important than any other visitor. As for UK visitors booking their vacations so far ahead, many US visitors do as well. I continually booked rooms a year and a half out before I bought into DVC.

This is everything I have said and more.

"{It would be outright ridiculous for Disney to give anyone information 2 weeks ahead of their own official announcement.}"

I have said this as well but then i get pointed to Virgin site and told I am full of pooh>(not in so many words)

So it be wriiten so it be done.!!!!!

ANd it is not written anywhere that i care about..

 

[patsal]

As far as percieived value, if these are the changes here are my plans for April 2008--Resort day, Sea World Day, Resort Day, and Possible US/IOA days, as well as eating at all the places we used to go off site prior to DDP. DDP kept me captive at WDW now I won't need to even get park passes at all for this short vacation.

 

[salmoneous]

DDP kept me captive at WDW now I won't need to even get park passes at all for this short vacation.

Interesting point. It could work the way ME does - something that cost Disney money, saves the customer money, but in the long run is good for everyone.

 

[Chuck S]

Once again, this thread has gone off topic. We are NOT discussing whether it is a Rumor or not, that fact was established in the topic line of this thread DDP Rumor and affect on DVC Member Perceived Value

No one in this thread has stated otherwise, nor debated otherwise. The Rumor aspect is moot for the purposes of this discussion.

Return to topic.

 

[CarolA]

You know one of the sources for the rumor is the Virgin update. Folks on here think that "Virgin" misunderstood something Disney "told them"

Yesterday I got my information on the Founder's Tapestry from Disney. (for the AKV purchase) It's a cardboard tri fold document with TWO pages of the three taken up with "legalese" and "disclaimers" (ie if they spell your name wrong you can't sue) I just started laughing that anyone thinks Disney would "communicate" with thier vendors "informally" if this is the LEVEL of "legal hoops" they go thru to GIVE something away!!!!

 

[salmoneous]

I just started laughing that anyone thinks Disney would "communicate" with thier vendors "informally" if this is the LEVEL of "legal hoops" they go thru to GIVE something away!!!!

You miss the point. It isn't that Disney officially communicated something to Virgin that Virgin misunderstood. It's the possibility that somebody who works for Disney informally communicated something to Virgin. People who work for Disney informally pass along bad information every single day, do they not?