PDA

View Full Version : An end to pool hopping for DVC


TiggerFreak
09-07-2002, 09:03 AM
Someone just posted a thread on the DVC board about two dfferent OKW CM's telling a guest that DVC has decided to end pool hopping and that letters will be sent soon explaining the new policy.

Look out, another 6000 view, 500 post pool hopping thread is soon to be born;)

CarolMN
09-07-2002, 10:21 AM
IMHO, it was only a matter of time before that perk ended. If you think about it, the number of DVC members and DVC rooms has grown SIGNIFICANTLY since DVC first began. At some point, it just won't be practical to allow the priviledge to continue. We may have already reached that point.

Luv2Roam
09-07-2002, 10:25 AM
Well, we now need:

5 people to suggest politely that letters be sent to DVC/WDW.

2 to start long posts about how DVC is going downhill as never in before.

1 newbie to ask if they should tip the CM's at the pool they will be using.

105 people to get off on the tipping policy.

50 Disney loyalists who flame others who think DVC/Disney is wrong.

5 who are more than willing to post that DVC/WDW is doing this to save money.

1 newbie who forgets how to use the quote function and ends up writing: [quote]An end to pool hopping for DVC[quote].

2 who say, "If they're gonna be like that, perhaps I should cancel my trip next year."


:jester:

TiggerFreak
09-07-2002, 10:32 AM
Carol,

Exactly what I said in a post on the DVC board!
How did we get so brilliant?
Just guessing at this:
1992 OKW new 400 rooms, other Disney resorts 4000 rooms
2002 DVC 1500 rooms, others 8000 rooms.

I'll do the math and post the numbers later, gotta go.

RoutemanDan
09-07-2002, 11:00 AM
Luv2Roam,You kill me!<img src=http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/lol.gif><img src=http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/lol.gif><img src=http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/lol.gif>
Thanks for the laugh today,but,as funny as it is,it's so close to the truth.

Horace Horsecollar
09-07-2002, 11:26 AM
Folks, this is still just a rumor. Two different CMs told one guest that "that pool hopping had been discontinued and that all members would be getting a letter shortly." The CMs may actually know what's going one. Or they may only think they know what's going on.

Pool hopping is a DVC member benefit that costs very little to provide in terms of real, incremental cost. But it helps DVC sell memberships. Some DVC members use the pool hopping benefit; some don't. But it makes all of us feel a little special, as in "here's something only DVC members are allowed to do."

Pool hopping has been restricted in recent years (no pool hopping on certain dates and never to AKL or SAB), but has hasn't been officially discontinued. In fact, the DVC Members Only web site clearly states, "The current pool-hopping program at other Walt Disney World® Resort pools will continue to be available to Members with the exception of certain restricted dates and/or further capacity issues."

Horace Horsecollar
09-07-2002, 11:31 AM
Folks, this is still just a rumor. Two different CMs told one guest that "that pool hopping had been discontinued and that all members would be getting a letter shortly." The CMs may actually know what's going one. Or they may only think they know what's going on.

Pool hopping is a DVC member benefit that costs very little to provide in terms of real, incremental cost. But it helps DVC sell memberships. Some DVC members use the pool hopping benefit; some don't. But it makes all of us feel a little special, as in "here's something only DVC members are allowed to do."

Pool hopping has been restricted in recent years (no pool hopping on certain dates and never to AKL or SAB), but it hasn't been officially discontinued. In fact, the DVC Members Only web site clearly states, "The current pool-hopping program at other Walt Disney World® Resort pools will continue to be available to Members with the exception of certain restricted dates and/or further capacity issues."

eeyore0062
09-07-2002, 11:32 AM
The end to pool hopping is at Stormalong Bay!

DVC-Landbaron
09-07-2002, 12:13 PM
2 to start long posts about how DVC is going downhill as never in before.I'm firing up the old Microsoft Word program right now!

I'll be back!!!

Bob O
09-07-2002, 12:35 PM
Im sure LB can enlighten me/us but i was under the impression pool hoping was one of the distinct perks for being a member of the DVC and if it is stopped that is more BS from the disney company and another cutback, if true they are treating DVC owners in the same low life manner that people in the town of Celebration have been treated!!

manning
09-07-2002, 11:48 PM
Did anyone see the post on DVC forum where a CM told a guest that Eisner would be voted out last thursday. Sounds like CM's are having fun.

TiggerFreak
09-08-2002, 10:18 AM
1992 dvc
Rooms on site 709
Members 2300

2002 dvc
Rooms on site 1478
Members 60000/ approx.

Well so much for our brilliance!
Even though membership increased 3000%, onsite rooms only increased 100%. So the effect of DVC members pool hooping could not be that much greater with only twice as many staying onsite now as in 1992.

Okay more guessing.
1500 rooms with 4 people average per room (remeber just guessing), equals 6000 people. At any given time lets say 5% are swimming, and 25% of those are pool hooping, so 75 people a day pool hop. Now that could put a real strain on resources:p

Aren't numbers fun:cool:

KNWVIKING
09-08-2002, 05:20 PM
While I have never pool hopped & probably never will,I would hate to see the perk go away for those who do. HOWEVER, I would hate to think that a guest who was staying at the resort was irratated because a bunch of DVC'ers were using their pool. And I'm not neccasarily talking about over crowding. All pools have "prime" locations- shouldn't resort guests be entitled to those areas rather then DVC'ers. Usually there are a limited number of tables around the pool,who should get those. I have no idea how many people pool hop,or how often or where to. But I doubt the perk is costing Disney anything,so why would they want to end it ? Maybe OKW is upset because people pool hop & spend money at the other resorts rather then Olivias or Gurggling Suitcase. Perhaps if Disney ends pool hopping it's because they listened to complaints by cash paying guests, but I really doubt it will be because of penny pinching.

Walt's Frozen Head
09-09-2002, 07:46 AM
Perhaps if Disney ends pool hopping it's because they listened to complaints by cash paying guests, but I really doubt it will be because of penny pinching. Pool hopping complaints have their roots in Disney's penny-pinching decision to steal existing pools from deluxe resorts instead of building pools when they build new DVC rooms.

DVC has directly decreased the value of Wilderness Lodge and Yacht and Beach Club stays. Disney damn well knew that at the time, they just thought guests were too dumb or too addicted to notice/complain about the difference.

It turns out that not all of Disney's guests are as dumb or addicted as Disney thought.

The vast majority of Disney's current problems are of their own making, and most of them are due to spending money in short-sighted, margin-maximizing ways rather than long-term, product-maximizing ways.

-WFH

DemoBri1
09-09-2002, 11:11 AM
WFH,

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that DVC has decreased the value of a stay at WL and YC/BC? I would have thought that adding 1 and 2 bedroom villa rooms to a resort would be an enhancement to the resort.

KNWVIKING
09-09-2002, 11:28 AM
... the topic is pool hopping. VWL and BCV guests using the Springs and SAB is not pool hopping, we are entitled to use those pools per our contract. One observation I will make: We stayed one time a VWL in Dec. The majority of the people in the spa and the quite pool were WL guests,not DVC'ers, who are not entitled to DVC property.

Pool hopping has been an issue long before VWL or BCV were even built.

Walt's Frozen Head
09-09-2002, 12:02 PM
DemoBri1:

What DVC "added" to the Wilderness Lodge is more people using the busses, the launches, the nice pool, and the restaurants. Disney took the WL's resources and spread them out over a larger area.

Would you think it was an "enhancement" if Artist Point took half your meal, gave it to a DVC member and still charged you the original price? Would you think it was an "enhancement" if you were staying at Wilderness Lodge and there was a line of DVC members in your room waiting to use your shower?

KNWVIKING:

Sorry, I didn't realize I'd have to explain things to this level of detail to be understood. My mistake.

Pool hopping got to be a problem when Stormalong Bay got so popular that the Y&BC guests complained about the pool crowds. Disney has already outlawed pool hopping for resorts.

Now DVC pool hopping is the problem, because Disney sold more DVC memberships than they built infrastructure to support... and the deluxe guests are complaining, again.

If you insist on ignoring history, you will continue to repeat your mistakes.

And about the spa... didn't you just ***** about the topic being "pool hopping?" Any chance you'd wanna practice what you preach? But, whatever, I understand what you're saying... they shouldn't have been so cheap on the quiet pool and spa options when building the original Wilderness Lodge.

-WFH

KNWVIKING
09-09-2002, 12:27 PM
.. The way I interpreted your post was that VWL & BCV guests were pool hopping because they only had "quite" pools. My point was they are not pool hopping at the WL and BC pools, they are entitled to use them. As for my spa remark: You stated something to the affect about DVC/Disney cheaping out on our pools. If ours were done so poorly,then why were WL guests going out of their way to get to ours?

From what I've read about pool hopping on the DVC board,the vast majority of hoppers are from OKW for obvious reasons. Not building a "theme" pool at VWL or BCV had little affect on hopping because these guests rearly have need to hop. So if penny pinching caused the problem, then the problem started back in '92 when OKW was built without a theme pool. I don't feel adding VWL or BCV had anything to do with the existing problem.

IMHO, if a theme pool was built at OKW......... never mind,to tired of that debate.

mjstaceyuofm
09-09-2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Walt's Frozen Head
What DVC "added" to the Wilderness Lodge is more people using the busses, the launches, the nice pool, and the restaurants. Disney took the WL's resources and spread them out over a larger area.

Would you think it was an "enhancement" if Artist Point took half your meal, gave it to a DVC member and still charged you the original price? Would you think it was an "enhancement" if you were staying at Wilderness Lodge and there was a line of DVC members in your room waiting to use your shower?
OK - The DVC portion of the resort is comprised of 136 units (studio, 1 br and 2 br) compared to the 728 rooms at the WL (or roughly 19% of the total resort less the DVC rooms). They added a pool, hot tub and a health club along with the DVC that are available to ALL WL guests - DVC or otherwise. I'd say that adds extra value to the resort in general. Just my opinion though. As far as the other things are concerned:

Busses - No big deal, who's to say that haven't added more busses to the routes with the addition of the DVC?
Launches - Ditto, same thing for the boats - see above.
Nice pool - They added a second pool with a hot tub.
Restaurants - Show me substantial proof that a paying guest has had reservations displaced by a DVC member and maybe you have a point for discussion.

The fact of the matter is half your meal isn't given to DVC members nor do you have DVC members using your shower when you stay there.

Yes, I'm biased being a DVC member and all, but I just don't see myself or my family or any other DVC member bringing down your resort experience all that much nor do I see adding rooms to a resort including additional resources reducing that experience either.

Walt's Frozen Head
09-09-2002, 01:56 PM
Not building a "theme" pool at VWL or BCV had little affect on hopping because these guests rearly have need to hop It is not the hoppers that are complaining, it is the deluxe guests being hopped on. OKW DVCers were banned from the WL pool on the basis of "resort pool-hopping" until the Villas, now that pool is fair game, yes? DVC pool hopping means far more traffic at the WL pool than suggested by the number of Villas there, and that's the reason there are complaints.

Actually, I could be wrong about the DVC pool-hopping policy: my assumption was that they were allowed to hop to other DVC pools, which means VWL and BCV opened those pools to all DVC members, not just those staying at the Villas in question.

Of course, if DVC members have always been allowed to hop to non-DVC resort pools, then the crowding problem and complaints should have been even easier to foresee, and represent an even larger and more basic failure on the part of management than I had originally estimated...

Show me substantial proof I feel no obligation (nor even desire) to "prove" anything to you: you are free to believe whatever you must to hold your world together.

I'm not the one complaining. I'm explaining why the complaints. If I don't "prove" something to your satisfaction, who cares? Do you think guest complaints will stop because those complaints weren't adequately justified to you, by me? I think you vastly overestimate both our spheres of influence.

There are too many people here who think I'm the enemy, and that "beating" me will make some kind of difference. I'm not, and it won't. As long as Disney's focus is somewhere other than their products, there will be complaints. Waste your breath arguing with me all you want, it's not going to change a damn thing at WDW.

-WFH

PS: Pressler is missing a Golden Opportunity... judging from the defensiveness of the reactions so far, I'm thinking pre-wadded panties would be huge sellers at DVC resorts...

CarolMN
09-09-2002, 02:13 PM
FWIW, DVC Members have always been able to hop to the pool at the WL. The only hotel not included in the pool hopping perk was the AKL. As you know, SAB was removed from the list when the BCV opened (due to concerns about overcrowding). DVC Members are supposed to call the resort ahead of time to see if pool hopping is permitted and they may be asked to leave if the pool becomes overcrowded.

Again, FWIW, there are almost always "pool crashers" to be found at the overcrowded pools. To me "pool crashers" are those who are not staying at the resort in question and are not authorized DVC pool hoppers. "Pool crashers" are a much larger problem than authorized DVC pool hoppers. Unfortunately, it costs $$ to keep people out. I haven't seen any complaints of overcrowding (or not being able to get a chair poolside) at SAB since Disney actively began handing out wristbands and limiting entry to those who are entitled to be there. Therefore, contrary to popular opinion, I do not think the addition of the BCV has negatively impacted conditions at SAB.

I am a DVC Member, but I have never pool hopped.

mjstaceyuofm
09-09-2002, 02:18 PM
WFH:

You're right, both our spheres of influence don't extend beyond who we talk to in our lives and the various postings on these boards. I'm sorry if I offended you - it was not intentional.

DemoBri1 asked what I thought was an honest, sincere question of you and got nothing less than what I perceived as a not so nice response. Thus I proceeded to interject into the discussion. I'm not asking you to prove anything to me, but rather to back up statements that you make. I believe the Villas and what came with them add value to WL - you believe it takes away value. I tried to lay out some specific facts and instances - maybe not as eloquently as others here, but an attempt nonetheless...

Perhaps "value" is a perception thing and while mine may be enhanced yours is not. We may never know.

Walt's Frozen Head
09-09-2002, 02:22 PM
As you know, SAB was removed from the list when the BCV opened Actually, I did not know. It does explain why I've seen more complaints about WL than the expected culprit, SAB.I do not think the addition of the BCV has negatively impacted conditions at SAB. Well, if the rules are different at SAB, that's understandable.

-WFH

CarolMN
09-09-2002, 02:41 PM
IMHO, "pool crashers" and not DVC pool hoppers are the largest share of the WL problem. DVC Members report that there are lots of Fort Wilderness guests who think that they are entitled to use the WL feature pool (not true) and also many locals who attempt to use the pool. When the CMs check IDs (as they sometimes do when the pool gets crowded), many, many people get up and leave. And it's not the DVC pool hoppers who are leaving, as they are entitled to be there.

DVC Members are not allowed to hop anywhere at all during the peak season weeks such as Easter, Christmas, July 4, etc. I just don't believe the DVC pool hoppers are a problem. If Disney chose to spend the $$ to limit entry to authorized users, there would NOT be a problem at any of the deluxe hotel pools. Obviously, JHMO. YMMV.

WDW2002
09-09-2002, 03:09 PM
I have never understood why DVC got the pool hopping thing anyway.

Lets look at it this way...
You buy a house, it has a pool that you can use anytime you'd like. Are you neighbors going to let you use their pools also, any time you'd like ?? Not likely. Are you willing to let your neighbors use your pool any time they'd like?? Again not likely.

So a person "buys" DVC but not being satisfied with the pool they just "bought" goes and uses their "neighbors" pool. It just doens't make sense to me.

Walt's Frozen Head
09-09-2002, 03:23 PM
I'm sorry if I offended you - it was not intentional No offense taken... no need for apology. I'm tired and distressed, not offended.

The gist of all this is that there have been customer complaints, customer complaints that have led to the discussion of ending DVC's pool-hopping, which I understand is a perq of membership and therefore part of the current allotment of Magic.

To whatever extent I misunderstood and misrepresented DVC's exact policies in this thread, acknowledging such mistakes doesn't affect the real problem.

It's tiring to post about the half-day-park, for instance... because someone is always ready to delineate the nine hours they spent there one day. These individuals are so pleased with themselves for "proving" the place is not a half-day park that they completely ignore the REAL guest complaints and the REAL attendance numbers and REAL spending averages that earned the joint its nickname in the first place.

Someone needs to acknowledge those real problems. When someone tries to acknowledge them here, they get beaten down with the pretty little proofs that affect nothing, least of all, the actual problem.

I am tired of people using the smoke and mirrors to sweep over the problems... but I'm not offended by it. I am distressed that so many otherwise intelligent people disregard existing guest complaints, but I'm not offended by it.

I think there is a real problem with the DVC infrastructure. We are now seeing guest complaints concerning the DVC infrastructure. I say the solution is to fix the infrastructure, some respond by arguing over the semantics I used pointing out the infrastructure, and claim that they have thusly proven the infrastructure sound.

I believe I addressed DemoBri1's question adequately... using analogies to put us in positions similar (but more obviously egregious) to deluxe guests who cannot get a chair at their pool, or who have to waste an extra 25 minutes on the dock because this launch is full. None of us in this thread have made this complaint for our own part, so I attempted to paint a picture of how it could feel.you believe it takes away value No, I believe there are complaints about the value. I believe I offered an explanation for the root cause of the problems leading to the complaints. I do not believe I made a personal assessment of value... VWL opened after my family had already decided Disney's resorts were no longer worth the extra cost over staying off-site, so I have no personal horror story involving DVC bathers.

Something interesting: even though I've done nothing in this thread but been "proven" wrong, this problem would not have come up now (and perhaps not ever) if Disney had made the different decision my theory suggested they should have made in the first place.

-WFH

KNWVIKING
09-09-2002, 03:24 PM
... I've spent about $23,000.00 in 3 yrs for my DVC points. I'll be gratefull for any spiff or perk WDW chooses to bestow upon me. Maybe it has to do with the "show" and "magic" and "pixie dust" and every other buzzword Disney is famous for.

DVC-Landbaron
09-09-2002, 05:11 PM
I just don't get it...
I have never understood why DVC got the pool hopping thing anyway.


An interesting question. And one that has it’s roots in the initial ‘concept’ of the Vacation Club (you know. Back when there were three mountains on the logo!). Anyway, the concept was that by buying a DVC interest you would “OWN A PIECE OF THE MAGIC”! You would NOT be a renter. A transient ‘guest’. You were an owner!!! And as an owner you were NOT merely an owner of a particular DVC resort (heck there was only one anyway!)!! NO!!! You were an ‘owner” of ALL the magic!! Free tickets!! discounts you never even considered! When the Swan and Dolphin (and I think Boardwalk before it was a DVC) boats were restricted to their hotel guests only (and I think there was a tram involved as well) DVC “Owners of the Magic” could hop on at any stop, flash their DVC card and receive “Royal” treatment!! And because you “OWNED” a piece of EVERYTHING, that entitled you to swim at any of “YOUR” resorts!! And what constituted “YOUR” resort? It had to be Disney! That’s it!! After all, you “OWNED” a piece of the Poly, just as you did the Floridian, just as you did the Vacation Club (before it was Old Key West)!

They sold that concept to the new members as well as the staff. I can tell you stories, back when the thing first started about how "respected" a DVCer was treated by CMs. They all seemed to know that there were a few perks that went along with being an "OWNER" as opposed to being a renter.

Ahhhh! But somehow (after the marketing was no longer needed, talk about a Baron being gulable!!!) that concept fell by the wayside. And another piece of Disney “magic” bites the dust.

Captain Hook
09-09-2002, 10:29 PM
How many DVC members actually pool hop? Our family never took advantage the previous times we visted WDW. I dont like the fact the offer it to us as a perk when we sign on the deed, and take it away without some compinsation.

Mouse Ears
09-10-2002, 12:29 AM
I haven't seen this written or posted, but I looked at the pool-hopping privilege as a way to minimize a common objection to DVC membership. Since there are many resorts at WDW with a variety of themes and offerings, some people like to try the different ones. The pool-hopping at least makes you feel like your welcome to enjoy the atmosphere at the other resorts even if you are staying in the DVC resorts. With so many new DVC options on-site, that spin may not be necessary for much longer.

I'm surprised to learn from this thread that we are able to shower-hop and meal-steal as well. I have never seen that in any of the DVC literature.

:jester: M.E. <-- with shower cap ready

mjstaceyuofm
09-10-2002, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by CarolMN
...Again, FWIW, there are almost always "pool crashers" to be found at the overcrowded pools. To me "pool crashers" are those who are not staying at the resort in question and are not authorized DVC pool hoppers. "Pool crashers" are a much larger problem than authorized DVC pool hoppers. Unfortunately, it costs $$ to keep people out....

I am a DVC Member, but I have never pool hopped.
Likewise, I've never pool hopped either. The pools at OKW and VWL have suited us just fine when we've stayed at WDW using our points.

IMHO, Carol defines the root of the problem here - pool crashers. It's just a different version of the same core problem you have everywhere - an overabuse of a privilege that Disney later feels is costing them money so they rescind the privilege. Take for example refillable mugs, free parking, etc. Now obviously it's not just the only problem, but I'm sure that it contributes. It's a societal thing (IMHO) that has affected how Disney does it's business that I'll save for another discussion. ;)

As an added note - if you are staying at the VWL you have full privileges of the resort, including the feature pool. Likewise with the BCV - you get to use the quiet pool and SAB. Same with BWV. Obviously OKW is an all DVC resort so you can use all the pools there. You can't pool hop to SAB (unless you're staying at the BCV) or AKL and Disney has the right to limit that privilege based on pool capacity and hotel occupancy rates.

As a personal note, with 2 new DVC resorts being added to the WDW property, I'm not so sure pool hopping is a perk that DVC members really need. Stay at a different DVC resort next time if you want the feel for that resort...

Lewisc
09-10-2002, 09:43 AM
I read a rumor (at least a year ago) that Disney was going to redo River Country as either a replacement for pool hoping for DVC or as a themed pool for Wilderness cabins. I guess that's not currently being considered.
As the number of DVC owners increase it makes sense that at some time pool hopping may end. Years ago someone posted that pool hopping was not a benefit listed in any of the legal documents but rather just a courtesy that could be eliminated.

DemoBri1
09-10-2002, 12:40 PM
OK...I guess I stirred the pot a great deal here. First of all WFH...are you saying that by adding these extra villa rooms (less than 150 @ VWL and 280 @ BCV) that this is the cause of boat launches being full and buses being overcrowded??

It seems to me that the total number of DVC villas at these resorts are significantly less than the total number of "deluxe" rooms at these resorts.

I agree with your point that maybe the infrastructure wasn't thought out a great deal, but it certainly is erroneous on your part to suggest that DVC resorts are the main cause of this "overcrowding" you refer to.

Keep in mind that ALL Resort guests (yes that includes people staying in "deluxe" resorts) used to be able to pool hop to any resort pool. I guess Disney has kept the pool hop perk for us in exchange for not getting daily maid/cleaning service.

Also WFH, please keep your comments such as:

judging from the defensiveness of the reactions so far, I'm thinking pre-wadded panties would be huge sellers at DVC resorts...

to yourself. There is no need for such an unintelligent statement. We are all Disney people here, and this is supposed to be fun (or at least I thought so).

WDW2000 in answer to your "neighbor pool" theory I think DVC-Landbaron summed it up well. When you buy into DVC you are an owner. This means than any pool tied to a DVC resort is actually your pool. I understand your analogy, and it was a good one, but I think you were a little unclear on the whole DVC ownership concept.

That's all I have to say on this subject. I apologize to everyone for creating such an out of control thread here. I just felt that something had to be said.

TiggerFreak
09-10-2002, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by DemoBri1
I guess Disney has kept the pool hop perk for us in exchange for not getting daily maid/cleaning service.

The Mousekeeping service is paid for out of our dues, so it is not a perk. Doc or one of the other long time owners may correct me on this, but I believe that DVC did studies , surveys and analysis in order to determine how much Mousekeeping an average DVC member would need /want. These services and frequency of are a part of the contract. Any extra service can be purchased on a per guest basis.

Pool hooping is a perk. I have not used it. Maybe never will. But I agree with many others that DVC members do not add signifcantly to the problems. I just don't believe that there are that many of us that pool hop on a regular and consistant basis.

Walt's Frozen Head
09-10-2002, 02:06 PM
it certainly is erroneous on your part to suggest that DVC resorts are the main cause Actually, it was Disney, not me, who pinned the blame on DVC by floating the trial balloon that DVC might lose perqs as a result of complaints.

We've gone through this already... when commenting on Disney's proposed action, I made some erroneous assumptions about DVC's pool-hopping policies and have been corrected, most effectively by CarolMN. Her information suggests that a) the problem is not a direct result of DVC's pool-hopping and therefore b) Disney's possibly ending that perq would be an ineffective remedy, at best.

I fully admit my mistake... I gave Disney too much credit for identifying the root cause of a problem before they suggested a draconian solution. As it turns out, their reaction is nearly insanely off target as far as the actual problem is concerned.

Shall we move on to the question "why would Disney punish DVCers for something that's not their fault," or would you prefer to re-iterate how wrong I was, again?Also WFH, please keep your comments such as:.... to yourself. No. Ignore me if the things I say so damage your psyche.

-WFH

WDW2002
09-10-2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by DemoBri1

WDW2000 in answer to your "neighbor pool" theory I think DVC-Landbaron summed it up well. When you buy into DVC you are an owner. This means than any pool tied to a DVC resort is actually your pool. I understand your analogy, and it was a good one, but I think you were a little unclear on the whole DVC ownership concept.

Maybe i do not fully understand DVC and thats fine, I don't indeed to buy into it. But from what I have read (here on the DIS) is people talking about how they bought "fill in the resort" DVC points, it makes sense that if you are going to buy into a resort you should like the resort and all its ammenities.

I actually have no opinion on DVC pool hopping or not, it makes no difference to me one way or another. I just have never understood why it would/should be a perk for DVC.

DisneyKidds
09-10-2002, 03:21 PM
I apologize to everyone for creating such an out of control thread here. I just felt that something had to be said.

Not sure how much you've lurked around this particular board, but if it isn't much stick around and you'll see some truely out of control threads ;). No aplologies required.

Actually, it was Disney, not me, who pinned the blame on DVC by floating the trial balloon that DVC might lose perqs as a result of complaints.

Now, now, oh frozen one. Not to harp on you being wrong, but you know much better than to have bought into this rediculous justification put out by the Disney spin machine ;).

ps. Demo - don't let the cryogenic cranium get to you - that is what he wants :crazy:. He may leave a chill everywhere he goes, but between the nasties he has some good thoughts (as much as I hate to admit it :p).

DisneyKidds
09-10-2002, 03:30 PM
I just have never understood why it would/should be a perk for DVC.

Why would it? For no other reason than Disney simply decided to make it part of the concept - the World as your oyster, to experience and enjoy as you please, without boundaries. A rather nice concept that people appreciated. Yes, most people do love the resorts they buy into, but Disney used to be in the habit of giving people even more to enjoy than others generally would.

****Note to self.....schedule electric shock therapy session - you sound too much like the Baron and must right your mind :crazy:.......****

Why should they? Well, there was no reason why they should have in the first place, other than that habit of theirs. Now they should because that is what they sold people. Yeah, everything is 'subject to change', but this is a change that would be stupid. If it truely is something that was floated in a conference room there is another hairbrained MBA that just doesn't get it.

DemoBri1
09-10-2002, 03:37 PM
Oh...it takes a lot more than that to get to me. I just felt that it was an inappropriate comment, and one that I don't feel our much esteemed colleague would like to have made about him.

WDW, while I do like the BCV area, some of the DVCers cannot buy into their favorite resort because it is sold out. There is the possibility of getting lucky on the resale front, but there aren't alot of resales out there for Boardwalk or Wilderness Lodge.

Buying in at a resort allows you to book a room 11 months ahead of your checkout date with DVC, however if you are booking a room at a non-home resort, you are only able to book 7 months ahead. It may seem rediculous to have to book this far in advance, but when you are dealing with the few rooms we have available to us, that is what needs to be done.

Walt's Frozen Head
09-10-2002, 04:03 PM
one that I don't feel our much esteemed colleague would like to have made about him. Actually, speculation about the state of my panties would be refreshing and comparatively harmless next to the speculation about my mental health and personal life I've had to deal with here...

-WFH

KNWVIKING
09-10-2002, 04:11 PM
.... TO KEEP HIS TONGUE FROM FALLING OUT HIS NECK HOLE.

TiggerFreak
09-10-2002, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by KNWVIKING
.... TO KEEP HIS TONGUE FROM FALLING OUT HIS NECK HOLE.

ROTFLMAO - which Head can't do :p

Uncleromulus
09-11-2002, 05:54 AM
As someone noted, the main "pool hoppers" seem to be from OKW--as I am. I've never heard of anyone hopping *TO* OKW..but then, who would admit to doing that anyway??!!
The main pool at OKW is basically a large bathtub---theme-less, no slide, no life guards. Add a slide, some guards, maybe an outdoor bar/ snack area (right near the pool) and I'd probably swim there and not pool hop. Hopping does require some extra time and preparation, but I always pool hop because the pool at OKW is so pathetic. If that pool could somehow be improved (and I know it won't be, so don't bother reminding me of that fact) pool hopping would probably be only an occasional practice and all would be well.

MHopkins2
09-11-2002, 09:28 AM
LOL - I must be a weirdo then (which will surprise exactly no one!), because I really liked the OKW pool! I thought it was pretty, without being overly cluttered with plastic monstrosities! ;) And as long as the bar is within short walking distance (I think the Gurgling Suitcase was about 20 steps from the pool), I'm happy with the "amenities!" :cool:

Dznefreek
09-11-2002, 04:51 PM
It does not matter how many members there are. They are not all on property at the same time.
What is the rationale?????????

DVC-Landbaron
09-11-2002, 04:54 PM
DemoBri1:
This means that any pool tied to a DVC resort is actually your pool.No! That does not go far enough!! EVERY pool within the WDW complex is YOUR pool!! The Poly, the Contemporary, the Floridian, etc. It does NOT need to be tied to a DVC resort!! That was the beauty of the concept. You were an owner of ALL of WDW. If there were transportation restriction placed on a certain resort, you were able to use it anyway. Why? Simple! You were an owner!! If you decided that dinner was going to be at the Poly that evening, bring the kid’s swimming suits along! Why? Cause you were an owner!!! Parking restrictions did not apply to you!! Why? You were an owner!! You “owned” a piece of the magic!! And that piece was NOT restricted to DVC resorts only! It encompassed the entire “world”!

That was the complete concept back when I bought in. It was simple and it was grand! Once again Disney exceeded expectations!! DVC members “owned” WDW. And because I still had my blinders firmly in place, I believed that this concept would not change! Disney had NEVER let me down in the past! When they made a commitment is was good for life! When they said that tickets were good for life, even if bought twenty years ago, they were good for life!!! And when the concept changed and they did away with tickets, they still honored their commitment and redeemed a pro-rated value on very old tickets! I remember back in the mid-eighties, I discovered a ‘gate’ ticket on one of the old ticket books I had. They were doing passports or hoppers at the time, I don’t remember which. Anyway, I brought it to City Hall and received an $8.00 discount on a three-day hopper (passport), and that was face value!! Disney’s word was GOLDEN!!

And when they started to hype the Vacation Club, I had no reason in the world not to believe their pitch! Ah! The naïve world of the LandBaron just ten short years ago!!

As strange as it sounds I’m going to endorse a Mr. Kidds post!! He summed it up nicely:
Why would it {be a perk for DVC members}? For no other reason than Disney simply decided to make it part of the concept - the World as your oyster, to experience and enjoy as you please, without boundaries. Where did that concept go? Where did that Disney go?



Now! As long as I’ve fairly satisfied the pertinent question of the thread (at least in my mind), it’s time to take up some unfinished business with my friend Mr. Kidds, for which I have two answers. And I really don’t know which one to use, so I’ll do both! (I added the bold in the below quote)
A rather nice concept that people appreciated. Yes, most people do love the resorts they buy into, but Disney used to be in the habit of giving people even more to enjoy than others generally would.Kind of sad they don’t do that anymore even when it comes to the moderate resorts, isn’t it? :(

or

Nuff said!! ;)

HorizonsFan
09-11-2002, 05:01 PM
Free tickets!!
Let's be fair here, Landbaron...
Free tickets were never a Disney perq. They were a developer perq and everyone knew that they were going away in 1999.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rather nice concept that people appreciated. Yes, most people do love the resorts they buy into, but Disney used to be in the habit of giving people even more to enjoy than others generally would.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kind of sad they don’t do that anymore even when it comes to the moderate resorts, isn’t it?

I'll probably be dismissed as one who doesn't know what it was like in the good ol' days, but IMO they still offer more than I could get elsewhere. If they didn't, I'd go elsewhere...

:D

DVC-Landbaron
09-11-2002, 05:15 PM
Free tickets were never a Disney perq. They were a developer perq and everyone knew that they were going away in 1999.Sure was!! But it was part of the 1992 package. So let's be fair all the way around. Free tickets are free tickets! And I certainly didn't care (and at the time didn't really know) where they came from. And for my family it was thousands of dollars worth of perqs! And you're right, everyone knew that they would run out. But they certainly intimated, rather overtly, that subsequent perks would replace the tickets!!

Again! Stupid, naive LandBaron!! I didn't realize at the time that Disney had so drastically changed in philosophy and tactics!

HorizonsFan
09-11-2002, 05:21 PM
But they certainly intimated, rather overtly, that subsequent perks would replace the tickets!!
There have been subsequent perqs. They just weren't as much as you expected.
Again! Stupid, naive LandBaron!!
Naive, perhaps. Stupid, NEVER!
:D

EUROPA
09-11-2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by HorizonsFan

I'll probably be dismissed as one who doesn't know what it was like in the good ol' days, but IMO they still offer more than I could get elsewhere. If they didn't, I'd go elsewhere...

:D

Yes of couse that is why we all still love and enjoy going to Disney ...it keeps coming back to the same thing though....Some of us are alarmed at the rate that those "Good things" are disappearing at and those "things" are not beng replaced with equal or better "things" at the same rate. (wow that is a mouthfull hope you understood what I was saying).

I think of it like this. Lets say you go to a local buger joint that has really great food. One day the place stops serving the "good" fries. "That's ok" you say "everything else is still great". The next time you go back they stop serving really good drinks...again you think.."everything else is still good". Then the next time you go back something else is missing or bad..and then the next time....one day you wake up and you're buger joint has sold out to McDonalds's and you have the crappiest hamburger of you life !!!

So when you you start to get worried? We are worried NOW !!

DVC-Landbaron
09-11-2002, 05:29 PM
There have been subsequent perqs. They just weren't as much as you expected.Now, I don't want to be a jerk about it, but can you think of ANYTHING they have offered that comes even remotely close to resembling the 'tickets' in either value or style? Please! I’m dead serious here!!! I really want to know, cause I can't think of a single solitary one!! And I bet you couldn't name one either. At least with a straight face, that is!!

hopemax
09-11-2002, 05:35 PM
you guys are buggin' me :)

There is no such thing as a "perq." It's a

PERK

however it is short for "perquisite" - a privilege, gain, or profit incidental to regular salary or wages;

This post has been brought to you today, by the letters "K" and "Q"

:jester: :bounce: :jester: :bounce: :jester:

HorizonsFan
09-11-2002, 05:40 PM
Now, I don't want to be a jerk about it, but can you think of ANYTHING they have offered that comes even remotely close to resembling the 'tickets' in either value or style? Please! I’m dead serious here!!! I really want to know, cause I can't think of a single solitary one!! And I bet you couldn't name one either. At least with a straight face, that is!!
If Disney had offered this perq to begin with, and intimated that they would replace it with something of equal value I would expect that. They didn't offer this perq. They have no obligation to replace it with something of equal value. There have been perqs added over the years. Perqs that Disney pays for. Do they equal the value of length of stay passes? Of course not. But did you really expect Disney to give you something that expensive every time you visit?
I know you placed your expectations of Disney very highly, and with good reason. They delivered over the years for you and your family. I know that you're disappointed in the direction the company has taken during the Eisner years. But, and I ask this with the utmost respect for you, is it possible that your expectations were too high and your view of the company pre-Eisner somewhat unrealistic?

HorizonsFan
09-11-2002, 05:41 PM
however it is short for "perquisite"
... which makes the abbreviation "perq" perfectly acceptable.
:D

hopemax
09-11-2002, 05:45 PM
then how come it doesn't show up in the dictionary? :) Are you trying to start a new trend?

HorizonsFan
09-11-2002, 05:51 PM
Hmmmmm...
I guess I'll have to start looking up slang words from now on. You are correct, it doesn't show up in Webster's. But they've been wrong before...
Are there any other words whose abbreviations contain letters not found in the complete word?
Silly language...
:D

WDW2002
09-11-2002, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by HorizonsFan
... which makes the abbreviation "perq" perfectly acceptable.
:D

Only if you spell it perqu beause my english teachers many many years ago told me the Q was ALWAYS followed by a U ;)

But I do agree...the correct spelling would be Perk.

Walt's Frozen Head
09-11-2002, 06:33 PM
hopemax...

Dictionaries are a lot like Disney in that they look around and see what people are doing, then change their definitions based on that. The dictionaries are a lot slower and more careful than Disney in implementing, is all.

The old saw "Ain't ain't in the dictionary" no longer applies, for many dictionaries.

"Insure" and "ensure" were not always synonyms. But because "insure" was so commonly misused in place of "ensure," it is now considered in many dictionaries to be a synonym (I half expect "ensure" to disappear completely, at some point. Sad, too, it really was a useful distinction).

That doesn't mean you're going to catch me saying "insure" when I mean "ensure." I will not dumb down, even if the dictionaries will.

I consider that one of the perqs of developing a superlative vocabulary.

-WFH

PS: Before everyone runs and types "snob" into thesaurus.com for use while crafting responses, this is a one way street: although using words properly in the face of dictionaries institutionalizing vulgarities is a sign one has put effort into a vocabulary, using the words as they appear in the dictionary is certainly not a sign one has neglected their vocabularly. I posted to defend my use of "perq" is this context, absolutely not to suggest anyone is wrong for using "perk" in this context.

DisneyKidds
09-12-2002, 08:44 AM
Yes of couse that is why we all still love and enjoy going to Disney ...it keeps coming back to the same thing though....Some of us are alarmed at the rate that those "Good things" are disappearing at and those "things" are not beng replaced with equal or better "things" at the same rate. (wow that is a mouthfull hope you understood what I was saying).

My words being defended by the 3ers. My words indicative of that 'us' and 'we'. What is this world coming to? or should I say what is this World coming to? Mind you, I haven't moved to car 3. Car 2, well, yeah, under the WFH definition. WDW is still a Magical place. The Magic is as strong as ever. However, the strength of that Magic is largely dependant on things that were put in place years ago, rather than on things that the company is doing today. Disney still does give you more than others, and in a much different way. That is why we all love it. However, recent decisions are questionable at best, and mostly serve to decrease value, rather than increase Magic. That doesn't detract from that foundation we went round and round about some time ago, that Magic that was created in the past (and the Magical additions of the recent past - there have been some, maybe not many, but some). All is not lost. Things are happening. Questions are being asked. People will be held accountable. It is unfortunate how long that is taking, and will still take.

Now for you, Baron........... (and you really want to go back here?)

A rather nice concept that people appreciated. Yes, most people do love the resorts they buy into, but Disney used to be in the habit of giving people even more to enjoy than others generally would.

Kind of sad they don’t do that anymore even when it comes to the moderate resorts, isn’t it?

Sorry, doesn't apply to the moderate resorts :p. First of all, lets consider the out of context bold of Disney used to be in the habit of giving people even more to enjoy. They sure as heck give you plenty to enjoy at the moderates. As much as there is to enjoy at the deluxe. It may be different stuff that there is to enjoy - a different experience - but it is there. Some can only accept one kind of experience as 'Disney' and that is unfortunate (for them) ;).

Now look at what you should have bolded if reading in context. Disney used to be in the habit of giving people even more to enjoy than others generally would. Well, they sure as heck still do this when it comes to the middle market 'moderate' hotel.

So, either way, not applicable. Yes, in regard to some other aspects of Disney I have to sadly agree with what I wrote, but not with respect to the moderate resorts.

Now, back on the topic at hand, Chicken Little Syndrome (CLS) has taken over - part of the problem with this board sometimes. You see, I have yet to see any official announcement that pool hopping has died - yet, we are all in mourning and long for the days when we got more, when we had pool hopping. Even I got sucked in and attended the wake. However, I took my little perspective pill and I have regained my faculties (for a short time at least :crazy: ). Not that the substance of the subsequent discussion might not apply to other things Disney, but staying close to the original topic can be a nice thing to do :).

raidermatt
09-12-2002, 12:26 PM
Scoop, stating that the concept and direction of DVC has changed with respect to "extras" is not the same as claiming entitlement.

Baron is only pointing out that he was led to believe that while free tickets might go away, the level of perqks and the concept behind providing them would not (and we have seen scores of others make similar statements) I agree with letting the free market make the decision, and if Disney did not violate any laws, they are perfectly within their rights to change their direction.

However, there is also nothing wrong with pointing these things out as facts, nor does it smack of the dreaded "entitlement mentality." Its just a way of pointing out that it happened, and giving the opinion that its not indicitive of what the Disney philosophy should be.

As far as the BCV perkq you mentioned, that sounds like a nice one. And if it were universally applied to all members, not just BCV, and especially to OKW, we might be able to put it at a similar level as the free tickets...

(yes, my spelling of perqks was an intentional effort to please everyone... just a little test to see if the old adage "you can't please everyone" is true or not...)

raidermatt
09-12-2002, 03:44 PM
Scoop, we feel the same way as you do about our DVC purchase. We are getting what we wanted and what we paid for. Our guide did not attempt to deceive us at all, and we bought based on what is in our contract.

We are happy. Yes, some more perks would be nice, but we aren't counting on them.

Despite what DVC sales reps are trained to do, there are just too many stories like Baron's, particularly from the early days that indicate they said other things. And it probably wasn't intended to be deceitful. They probably were told that while perks may change, they would still be roughly equivalent in value.

I highly doubt there is any legal leg to stand on for owners who got what have turned out to be incorrect impressions. But legal or not, its not the way Disney used to do business with its customers.

As far as DVC paying for the perks, that is only the case because the different divisions are not looking at things from a "what's in the best long term interest of DISNEY", and instead are just trying to hit their monthly numbers. If the company as a whole realized that giving DVC members a 20% discount at some restaurants might actually generate revenue in the LONG TERM, there would be no need to charge DVC.

Now, I'm not pretending I know what level of "perks" is the right level for DVC to best balance long-term satisfaction and short term costs. However, given how the company thinks these days, I have very little doubt that the current level was not set with long-term satisfaction (and therefore long term profits) in mind.

PKS44
09-12-2002, 04:00 PM
I do not believe that dues can be used for anything other than the running of the resorts...dues are not used to fund discounts..... "discounts" are loss leaders provided by the places (like the minigolf or the restaurants, to get you in the door to spend money they do not believe they would see otherwise..)

Paul

raidermatt
09-12-2002, 04:33 PM
Yes, people should be able to rely on what CM's say (ala refillable mugs), but at some point it is our responsibility to learn the rules.

Again, I agree on an individual level. The ultimate DVC example of this is the parks themselves. They are not guaranteed in the contract, and I know that. So, should they close, I wouldn't be screaming "Lawsuit!", because I purchased DVC knowing this.

But that doesn't mean it would be in Disney's best interest to take away something like this from DVC members. And that's the point with the tickets.

I also struggle with the "somebody told me", at least until there are clearly thousands who are being told, like with the 5 in a room issue. The only difference with that issue is that in the long run, Disney is not really damaged by the confusion. And given DVC's relatively small membership in the grand scheme of things, the mis-information given to so many in the past probably doesn't hurt them that much either. But it does hurt them a bit, and that still doesn't address the question of whether its in their overall best BUSINESS interests to offer a little more.

Scoop, I know you don't want more, and would be just as happy with less, but I'm sure you'd agree that given the choice between free/discounted park tickets and free/discounted activities at the resorts, the majority of DVC owners would jump at the park tickets. The parks are still by far the biggest draw to WDW, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Believe me, I will still be happy as a clam with my DVC if they never offer me another perk. But I still wonder how much of a long-term positive effect such perks can have on the WDW Resort, and for that matter, on the Walt Disney Company as a whole.

And not to speak for Baron too much, but I don't think he's saying his DVC experience is the only reason for his overall change of heart about Disney's direction. Its just one piece of the puzzle, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me, FWIW...

raidermatt
09-12-2002, 08:09 PM
Scoop, that's great for you. I'm not disputing what the Scoop Clan wants.

I could say that the Raider Clan would much prefer park discounts/incentives. It would be true, but what would it prove other than our two Clans have somewhat different tastes?

I'm just saying that in this particular case, you are in the minority. You know, taking the macro, big picture view, all that stuff...

Of course, all that said, I don't think DVC is really offering EITHER of us very much in the way of perks. While, like you, I am fine with that from a personal standpoint, I'm still not convinced they made that decision with long term strategy in mind...

And it would be an outright lie to say that an increase in perks would not increase my satisfaction with DVC and Disney in general. Again, I'm not saying that automatically means more perchs should be offered, but I do believe that is probably the case.

DVC-Landbaron
09-12-2002, 09:00 PM
There he goes again!!! SCOOP!!! Stop twisting my words to fit your pithy responses!!! Dave is absolutely right. It is one thing to say here are free tickets for life, but it is another to be given some free tickets and then decide you are entitled to them for life. Where did I say that I thought they would be offered “for life”? I NEVER said it and I NEVER implied it!! In fact, quite the opposite, Mr. Scoop!!! Convenient memory, my friend, or literary license? Remember exactly what I said?? And you're right, everyone knew that they would run out. But they certainly intimated, rather overtly, that subsequent perks would replace the tickets!! Kind of like my shotgun riding buddy said for me while I was slaving away in the real world! Remember? Scoop, stating that the concept and direction of DVC has changed with respect to "extras" is not the same as claiming entitlement.

Baron is only pointing out that he was led to believe that while free tickets might go away, the level of perqks and the concept behind providing them would not (and we have seen scores of others make similar statements) I agree with letting the free market make the decision, and if Disney did not violate any laws, they are perfectly within their rights to change their direction.Thank you Mr. Matt!!! I couldn’t have said it any better myself!!! (In fact, I thought I did. Evidently not up to Scoop’s standards though!!) In fact you said many other GREAT things!! Wonderful things!! One more and then I’ll let it go. However, there is also nothing wrong with pointing these things out as facts, nor does it smack of the dreaded "entitlement mentality." Its just a way of pointing out that it happened, and giving the opinion that its not indicative of what the Disney philosophy should be.Wonderful!!! Bravo!!! :bounce: It kinda makes me wonder what the response would have been if I would have said that instead!! My reference to the "entitlement mentality" goes back to a lot of Disney Vacation Club debates (both here, at the DVC board, and elsewhere) regarding "Member Benefits".Yes! We all know. You read one too many posts from bicker and couldn’t get the phrase "entitlement mentality" out of your head!! ;)

raidermatt
09-12-2002, 09:24 PM
Scoop, maybe you're right. Its probably true that as DVC'ers get older, resort time picks up at the expense of park time. But, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I am pretty sure the parks will remain the number one draw.

Regardless, the main point was that whether we want resort activity percs, or theme park perqs, we aren't getting much of either. And while certainly we are not entitled to them, I'm still of the opinion that providing more than they do now would be in Disney's best long-term interest.

Thank you Mr. Matt!!!

Hey, anytime. I'm just glad I didn't mis-interpret what you said!

DVC-Landbaron
09-13-2002, 01:16 AM
Sorry Mr. Kidds. I didn't mean to slight you, but Scoop needed dealing with first! :cool: I'm sure you understand. Now, back on the topic at hand, Chicken Little Syndrome (CLS) has taken over - part of the problem with this board sometimes. You see, I have yet to see any official announcement that pool hopping has died - yet, we are all in mourning and long for the days when we got more, when we had pool hopping. Even I got sucked in and attended the wake.No pool hopping isn’t dead yet. But even the blind can read the writing on the wall. But that isn’t what I am mourning. It is the concept behind the pool hopping that is very dead!! And it should have a wake. It should have had a wake when Wilderness Lodge opened with no privileges. And it should have had another wake when The Beach and Yacht were TAKEN away! The very concept of “owner” is seriously dead. And that is what I lament! No sky falling. Just facts!

DisneyKidds
09-13-2002, 02:06 AM
Mr. Baron - understood, you and Scoop must do your thang ;).

No pool hopping isn’t dead yet. But even the blind can read the writing on the wall.

Well, I guess all that is left for me is pinball, because sight must not be the only sense I've lost - I don't see your writing. Yeah, SAB is gone. Heck, it was limited before BCV. But, really, how many DVCers spend any time at say the Poly, or GF, or....... I doubt it is many. I doubt eliminating them would make any difference at the pools. I doubt Disney believes otherwise. I just can't see why eliminating all pool hopping would be seen as necesssary by Disney. I could be wrong. Maybe you can translate the writing into brail for me.

Here is what I see - eliminated SAB hopping, and a few CM's* who make one or two uncorroborated statements, and voila - the writing is on the wall? CLS my friend - and I reiterate, one of the very few negatives on these here boards. Sometimes we all (myself included) appear to take this stuff way too seriously. We all get grounded eventually, but we can get carried away. (btw - where are all those refillable mug barcode readers at all the resorts :confused: )

The concept behind pool hopping dead? Perhaps. Maybe you can give me something other than the passes you no longer get to make me understand why you feel that way. What privileges (or lack thereof) are you referring to at the VWL? I just need more than the taking away of SAB to make me believe the concept of owner is completely dead. Sure, the latest management guru to head DVC might not think that the 'owner' concept is foremost any longer, but completely dead? because of no passes and no SAB? Listen, call me an apologist, call me a settler, call me whatever, but with SAB they have a real issue that required some action. I don't want to get going on Scoops reality ride, but for you to lose all faith because of action taken on the SAB issue - CLS ;). On the passes thing, if I recall your first post on the recent related thread it did seem to me you were saying your passes were taken away, which implied you should have had them for longer. Only when pressed did you 'clarify' and say it was not about the passes, but about no subsequent per?. You aren't really a twister, but you are very good at making statements/arguments that fit the moment, even if the substance is questionable (no offense, we all are guilty of it now and again ;)). So, on the whole no passes or comparable per? equalling the death of the DVC concept - CLS ;).

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your view on DVC is very consistent with your view on, well, just about anything (I admire your consistency :)), and that could be summed up as.......'it used to be this, it isn't any more, so all must be rotten in Denmark'. I have come to see your views on things here and there, but your overall philosophy (as it appears to me, and you know how wrong I can be :rolleyes: [go ahead, use that sarcastic pseudo dig on myself against me, I fully expect it :p] I just can't buy into.

*CM's are great, but hardly a reliable source when it comes to a lot of things Disney. Sad, I know. WE actually know more about Disney and policy than many of the CM's out there. Of course there are very knowledgeable ones (so don't take offense Steve, Show, etc. ;)), but how often can I actually educate many of the CM's on issue after issue after issue? the answer is very often. Sometimes I cringe at the misinformation given out by some CM's. They are great, they are just trying to be helpful, but they are very often wrong.

DisneyKidds
09-13-2002, 02:16 AM
I'm just saying that in this particular case, you are in the minority. You know, taking the macro, big picture view, all that stuff...

On this case of 'time in parks vs. time at resorts' I fall in with Scoop. Each visit finds us spending a couple of hours more hours at the resorts than we had the trip before. I very much doubt that what Scoop said represents the minority, big picture and all. Granted, I would never go so far as to say that DVC would be a draw without the parks (and Scoop didn't say that). The parks are the main event, but when most people go to a fight they spend more time watching the undercard. The parks are what we go to WDW for, but that doesn't mean that is where the majority of our time has to be spent.

Do I smell a poll in the making?

raidermatt
09-13-2002, 10:36 AM
DK- Here's Scoop's quote:

I'd much (rather) have a "community hall" or organized pool/family activities like at OKW than even free park tickets.

Do you really believe that the average DVC'er would take an organized pool activity over FREE park tickets??? That WAS Scoops statement after all, and its one that I maintain is still the minority.

Think about it... One choice is free park tickets, and your pool remains available to you at your resort.

The other is an organized pool activity, with the park prices remaining what they are.

I thought about doing a poll, but honestly, it still seems too ridiculous to even ask. However, if after this clarification, DK, you still maintain that a pool activity would be favored over free park tickets, I will figure out a fair way to post that question.


Now, that said, perhaps you were just agreeing with Scoop that the balance shifts from Parks to Resorts the longer DVC'ers remain members. Now THAT I agreed with, though I am still maintaining the parks are the bigger draw.

I'm not talking about a time study (after all, we spend anywhere form 6-10 hours sleeping in our rooms each night...).

But really, all of this is pretty much a moot point right now. There are very few perchs being given at either the resort or the parks right now. And certainly NOTHING that even remotely compares to free park tickets.

With respect to Pool Hopping itself, here's the bottom line: The most popular pool for hopping, and therefore the most valuable pool in the pool hopping arsenal for DVC'ers, was taken away. For DVC'ers that rarely pool hop (like us), its not a big deal. But I can still see that its a significant take away, regardless of your view on the future of pool hopping.

DisneyKidds
09-13-2002, 11:18 AM
Fair enough Matt. I was looking at the bigger picture of this discussion, particularly the few posts leading up to Scoops quote you present. I was speaking about the balance of resort vs. park time and the fact that the Scoop clan spends more time at the resorts than the parks. It appeared to me that that is where you felt Scoop was in the minority. My mistake perhaps.

As to the example of an organized pool activity vs. passes, I agree that Scoop falls into the minority. Give me the passes! Now, a real community hall - that could be a different strory. Tough call, if Disney were to do it right. Such a thing would require a real investment, and would be stocked with more activities and per?s than a pool game. I have stayed at other timeshares that have great community halls and they can provide a lot of benefit - if done right. That 'if' would scare me and I would probably still take the passes, but the idea could have potential.

The poll I was envisioning was something like.......'other than time spent in the room sleeping or dressing in the morning, do you spend more time inside the parks, or outside the parks?' It looks like you concede that the park time might be less.

On per?s - other than passes (a temporary per? from the start) and pool hopping (never guaranteed), what are all the magical per?s that are missing? Really, were there ever any? I imagine it was obvious to most that the free passes were a gimmick to attract people when DVC first opened. Timeshares do it all the time. To believe that these were anything else was a bit naive.

As for the pool hopping to SAB, it is a loss. However, if the good Baron considered himself a good 'owner' he would realize the need and benefit to limiting pool hopping to SAB. Really, it is in the best interest of the property, and therefore the owners. I guess being an owner is great if it means it entitles you to something, but not when you have to actually think like an owner and protect your investment, the very thing you own. Back to that reality thing again. If pool hopping goes away entirely I will agree with the Baron on the subject, but SAB alone does not represent the defiling of DVC, at least not to reasonable owners, IMHO.

As for hopping, we actually look forward to hopping to the GF and Poly pools. We can and will be staying at BCV and will use SAB then. Now that we own DVC we aren't likely to pay cash to stay at the GF or Poly, but it will be nice to use the facilities.

raidermatt
09-13-2002, 02:11 PM
although I guess I'm not the only one misquoting these days since I also pointed out a community hall for each resort and organized family activities (scavenger hunts, unbirthday parties, tours, etc.).

Well, here's exactly what you said...

I'd much have a "community hall" or organized pool/family activities like at OKW than even free park tickets.

You did say OR....

About the only thing I said that could be categorized as a misquote was I said "an organized pool activity", where you used the plural. So, change my statement to "several" instead of "an". Point remains the same...


I went back and re-read my last few posts, and the two things I said were that the biggest DRAW was the parks, and that most DVC'ers would prefer park incentives vs. resort incentives. Again, nothing about adding up the amount of time, though maybe I missed something again?

The amount of time is really irrelevant, and if I used that at some point, my apologies, as its not what I meant.


Fair enough Matt. I was looking at the bigger picture of this discussion, particularly the few posts leading up to Scoops quote you present. I was speaking about the balance of resort vs. park time and the fact that the Scoop clan spends more time at the resorts than the parks.

Ah, but you see, that is most definitely NOT the big picture. As I said, the amount of time is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is what DVC'ers would value more.

But before we get too far into that, let me point out that's not the big picture either. An interesting debate, but again, its really irrelevant.

Why? Because percks at either the resorts or parks are virtually non-existent. While its interesting to debate which perchs would be best, that wasn't the point. The Scoop clan is not getting its pool activities, or community hall. And the Raider clan is not getting its free park tickets, or preferred Character breakfasts in the parks.

On per?s - other than passes (a temporary per? from the start) and pool hopping (never guaranteed), what are all the magical per?s that are missing?

There's quite enough Magic in this one perq to dwarf anything else offered.

And, again, there is NO need to remind me (or anyone else) that passes and pool hopping are not guaranteed. For the last time (I hope), this is not about entitlement, or legal responsibility.

This is about philosophy, and for me, how that philosophy translates to long term business goals. Not just the business goals of DVC, for they are clearly selling units just fine without the perks.

Moreso, I'm thinking of the long-term goals of WDW and Disney as a whole. DVC members are about as hardcore Disney as you can get. There's two ways to view your most loyal and committed customers:

1- They love us anyway, so anything extra we give them is a waste of money.

2- They love us, and we had better make sure we keep it that way. They are our most vocal customers, and best way to spread postive "word-of-mouth". They bring friends and family to their vacation homes, and their children will be our next group of most loyal customers. Let's make sure we keep 'em happy and spending.

Certainly, there is a balancing act between the two. You can't give infinitely to your best customers. Eventually, you hit the point of diminishing returns. However, given the trend of recent decisions of all things Disney, do you REALLY believe that Disney the company is making the "to perk or not to perq" decision based on an evaluation of how those perks impact the overall company not just now, but for years into the future?

I don't.

However, if the good Baron considered himself a good 'owner' he would realize the need and benefit to limiting pool hopping to SAB. Really, it is in the best interest of the property, and therefore the owners.

Take a step back. Look at the true BIG picture. The demand for SAB was starting to outpace the supply of SAB, if you will.

There are two ways to solve such a problem. One is to decrease the demand. One way to accomplish this is to limit access, which was Disney's choice.

They second way to solve this type of problem is to increase supply. Either make SAB bigger (probably not practical), or create SAB's equivalent at other resorts.

In SAB, Disney has created something that guests who find themselves spending more time at their resort absolutely love. But alas, Disney does not want you to spend that time at your resort, and certainly not at your pool. So, rather than put a SAB equivalent at the BWV, or WLV, they simply stop you from hopping over to SAB.

Now, as somebody who thinks DVC'ers will want to spend more and more time at the resort, you should easily be able to see the irony in this entire situation. Disney does not WANT to give you anything at the resort. They want you in the parks. By your own admission, this will be in growing contradiction to what you want in the future.

As for the DVC'ers who do want to continue to go to the parks, Disney is happy to accomodate them, but not by providing incentives/rewards. Instead, its by making sure the resort option doesn't become more attractive.

Disney is thinking about how much money they can squeeze out of you on your next trip. Instead, they should be thinking about how they can keep you coming back for your next 20 trips.

DisneyKidds
09-13-2002, 03:28 PM
Wow Matt, you have gotten as long winded as our good Baron :eek:.

OK. Here we go. I'll try to be short (as if....).

First off, I don't know that time spent wherever is irrelevant to the value of per?s. On the contrary, it is directly related to the value question. However, you are correct that that is another discussion since there really are not many per?s anyway.

I say there never were very many true per?s....................

It was not my intention to reiterate that certain per?s were not guaranteed. Rather, it was to point point out that what some consider to be bona fide per?s may never have been a per? in the first place. OK - pool hopping I would call a per?, but we still have that one. We'll talk more about SAB in a moment.

I would say that free passes were never a DVC per? to begin with. They were a developers carrot. Is it just possible that this common timeshare carrot was misinterpreted as the application of the Disney 'give them everything you can' philosophy? Now, since there are no free passes you view it as them having been taken away, as Disney abandoning the philosophy. However, passes never should have been viewed as a Disney per?. They should have been viewed as exactly what they were - a great bonus for being one of the first to sign on the dotted line. You state that DVC sells just fine without per?s. That was the goal - to have a viable timeshare not dependant on per?s to sell units. However, Disney still does use sales incentives.

If the purchasers view back when was 'cool, if I sign up now I can get passes for 10 years', as opposed to 'wow, Disney is great - not only will I get this great timeshare, but passes are part of the deal because Disney sure knows how to go above and beyond' would you feel any differently?

You see, free passes back then are no different than free nights for the early BCV purchasers, or Magical Beginnings, or any of the other sales incentive programs that have been offered. These are sales tools, sales incentives - not per?s. Passes may have been the ultimate sales incentive, an incentive that paid off for many years, but the weren't a per? of ownership. If they were a true per? of ownership then everyone would have gotten them, regardless of when they bought. See the difference?

Moreso, I'm thinking of the long-term goals of WDW and Disney as a whole. DVC members are about as hardcore Disney as you can get. There's two ways to view your most loyal and committed customers

It doesn't appear to me that free passes had anything to do with keeping the hardcore happy - they had to do with rewarding those who signed up for the new concept. Looking at it in that regard, it really has nothing to do with the 'to per?, or not to per?' question.

Baron might have enjoyed his free passes, I might have enjoyed the cash I got from selling back my first years points, Joe Blow will enjoy his free nights at the Poly. However, these are the apples to apples comparison of what each of us might have received for signing on the dotted line. None of these represent per?s of ownership.

As for SAB - I think the idea that Disney should build more SAB like pool complexes because the existing one has become too crowded is a tad rediculous. If any company had to deal with that attitude they would never offer anything. SAB was never built to with DVC in mind. It was nice to be able to use it as a DVC member (which you still can - just stay there). However, Disney is not about to build more SAB's to keep some spoiled DVCers happy - nor should they. They made a reasonable decision to solve a real problem. Some see that as pool hopping being taken away - we are no longer owners, free to go where we want :rolleyes:. Well, there are tons of other pools to hop to. Is Disney to be puished for creating a pool complex as great as SAB? Maybe they should just build ho-hum common pools so nobody gets upset if they can't go.

Disney is thinking about how much money they can squeeze out of you on your next trip.

Disney may be making some bad decisions lately (like the last 5 years :(). However, not everything comes back to this - and most certainly not the elimination of SAB from pool hopping. Actually, this sounds quite a bit paranoid if you ask me, especially when applied to the whole SAB issue.

So much for being short ;).

PKS44
09-13-2002, 04:29 PM
weighing in with a different take-perks vs. other stuff

The free tickets were a sales incentive-period.

The restaurant discounts, etc are a loss leader offered by merchants to get you in the door. They are a kind of a perk but really more of a targeted marketing campaign to a certain group of consumers with disposable income-- DVCers.

The MB program is not a bonus- you give up the use of your "unit" and they give you some cash back and then try to rent out that unit themselves to get the cash back (and then some)

The free stay program with BCV was because you were buying a use year when there was no use...so they were giving you something you could use in the meantime.

Poolhopping is a true perk- it costs next to nothing.
I am skeptical that SAB had to be restricted all the time for crowding reasons- recent trip reports suggest my skepticism was well founded- the restriction of SAB was one way to move sales of BCV by making BCV ownership have a special meaning...maybe that sounds paranoid, it also rings true. Which is why the new special pool complex at the new DVC at Saratoga Springs (DI) will also likely not welcome poolhoppers as I have predicted.

Paul

raidermatt
09-13-2002, 06:00 PM
First off, I don't know that time spent wherever is irrelevant to the value of per?s. On the contrary, it is directly related to the value question.

Wow.

I'll just say this: First, reduce the price per night at the resorts by $50. Then, slap a $50 price tag on all of the currently "free" activities at the deluxe resorts.

For DVC'ers, lets just reduce the point cost per night by 20, then give them the option of getting into the theme parks for 20 points, or using resort amenities/activities for 20 points.

Then we can take a look at time spent as an indicator of value...


Regarding the free theme park tickets...

MANY DVC'ers from early on expressed the same thoughts as Baron. They were told that the tickets would probably not last forever, but the concept of providing things like this to DVC'ers was supposed to last. Were it only Baron alone, fine, we could call it a case of somebody getting a bad guide, or only hearing what they want to.

However, just like the 5 in a room situation, we have MANY who say they were told similar things. Yes, the official policy was you are only guaranteed what's in the contract. Just like the official policy on 5 in Studio is no. Yet many who ask are told not to worry about it.

Well, if Disney started enforcing the 5 in a room policy, it would certainly signify a shift in philosophy, just as stopping the tickets without any kind of replacement did. Perfectly within their rights to do so, but a shift nonetheless...

Passes may have been the ultimate sales incentive, an incentive that paid off for many years, but the weren't a per? of ownership. If they were a true per? of ownership then everyone would have gotten them, regardless of when they bought. See the difference?
Why yes I do (and always have...). And the key difference is that the other incentives you mention are sold as exactly that, incentives. New DVC'ers are no longer told that the free nights, or their equivalent, are a part of an ongoing philosophy. Early DVC'ers were told this. THAT is the difference, and THAT is the change.

It doesn't appear to me that free passes had anything to do with keeping the hardcore happy - they had to do with rewarding those who signed up for the new concept.
Let's try something different. Unless you were swayed by my above explanation, you still don't believe there has been a change in philosophy. Ok, so let's forget comparing what is vs. what was.

Let's just look at what IS, and ask if its what it SHOULD be. Now re-read my portion about whether to perk or not to perq. Start with the part that begins with "Moreso", and ends with "I don't".

Make any more sense? Any thoughts on this?

As for SAB - I think the idea that Disney should build more SAB like pool complexes because the existing one has become too crowded is a tad rediculous.
If guests are flocking to something it means it has value to them. Another SAB at another resort would therefore increase the value at that resort. That makes the guests who are staying there happier, increases occupancy, and allows you to charge higher rates, if you wish.

In and of itself, that is a good thing, is it not? Certainly not a ridiculous concept...

However, Disney is not about to build more SAB's to keep some spoiled DVCers happy - nor should they.

Again, big picture... Just as SAB increases the value at the Y&B (not just the villas), other SAB type pools would increase the value at those resorts. Remember, it maybe only DVC'ers that have had their hopping to SAB taken away, but surely the "regular" guests at the other resorts would place greater value on a SAB level pool as well.

Its not about keeping a small group of extremely loyal guests happy, its about increasing the value of the property, and keeping that small group of loyal (or spoiled) guests happy in the process.

Given that the level of detail at SAB makes it a more valued pool-experience than other pools on property, there's really only two reasons not to build more-

1- Though it increases value, its not enough to cover the cost of the more expensive pool.

2- It does increase value more than the cost, HOWEVER, the goal is to keep you going to the parks...

If its number 1, then SAB was a mistake, and those who can use it should enjoy it while it lasts.

If its number 2, I'm questioning the long term strategy of minimizing resort amenities to make people go to the parks. I'm saying there is at least a strong possibility that it would be in Disney's best long-term best interests to go ahead and build more SABs.

DVC-Landbaron
09-13-2002, 06:42 PM
Man!! I hate this eight to ten hour gap!!!

First, although a bit out of order, is Scoop! (of course, who else!) ;)
So, no, I never said "Baron thinks he is entitled to free tickets forever" although I believe in some manner you do feel that you should have continued to receive them (that statement goes back along ways to a post when you were explaining how expensive it was for your whole family to visit WDW in Julys now that the free pass promotion has expired.Yeah! It got VERY, VERY expensive!! But I never for a moment thought that PERK (the only spelling my spell-checker will allow!) would stay!! I was clearly told that 2000 would be the cut off. (as an aside only, I was also told that there would be something to replace it! Believe it or not. You asked me to believe in your WDW friends. I’m asking you to believe this! But whatever you think, IT IS TRUE, nonetheless!)

Regardless, my "entitlement" comment is primarily directed to the view that DVC member are entitled (maybe "deserve" is a better word) some type of "off-resort" perk. To me that is simply hogwash. I totally don't believe the "whole WDW" ownership thing because, if that was indeed true, all the resorts would have been DVC resorts rather than the "Disney Collection". Such is not and has not ever been the case.How silly!! Maybe you don’t believe the whole “owner” thing because by the time you bought, the concept was already DEAD!! I wonder if that thought ever occurred to you. If you talk to the people who bought when the Vacation Club started I think you’ll find that it was one of the major selling points! As I said, those boats and trams that were VERY restricted at the EPCOT hotels were ours to enjoy anytime we wanted. Why? Because we OWNED(!!!!!) a piece of the magic! By the time you bought, that philosophical ideal was totally forgotten!

In the end, as stated before, we've always viewed DVC as a "part" of our WDW visit, not as the foundation or mother ship of sorts.That is quite contrary to the concept they first floated. Did it ever occur to you that between the time I bought and the time you bought, things may have changed?

Okay, that's all from me on this thread. Go ahead and take the last word and we can stop this merry go round before page 18 stares us straight in the face.Too bad. I really would have liked an answer! Oh well! Thanks for the last word!!


Mr. Kidds!! I was agreeing with you a while ago and then you turned dumb on me again!!!! ;) What happened!??!?!

The concept behind pool hopping dead? Perhaps. Maybe you can give me something other than the passes you no longer get to make me understand why you feel that wayI don’t think I ever said that the “Pool-hopping” concept was dead (although it will be). I said, clearly, that the “owner” concept was dead. There’s quite a difference. The former is merely the symptom of the larger disease!!

I just need more than the taking away of SAB to make me believe the concept of owner is completely dead. Sure, the latest management guru to head DVC might not think that the 'owner' concept is foremost any longer, but completely dead? because of no passes and no SAB?The tickets have NOTHING to do with this discussion. But SAB certainly does. And even more important was the pool hopping restrictions placed on AKL!! That, is very telling!!!
On the passes thing, if I recall your first post on the recent related thread it did seem to me you were saying your passes were taken away, which implied you should have had them for longer.Then you read it wrong. I NEVER said or mean to imply any such thing!
). So, on the whole no passes or comparable per? equaling the death of the DVC concept - CLS .I agree!! But again, I never said that!!! It’s AKL and before that Wilderness that is even more telling, wouldn’t you agree?
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your view on DVC is very consistent with your view on, well, just about anything (I admire your consistency )Thank you!!! As I told Scoop, it is very, very deliberate!! And sometimes hard to maintain!!
'it used to be this, it isn't any more, so all must be rotten in Denmark'Mr. Kidds. I can see why you may think that. Mainly because it is true. Can you cite me one example of that OLD FASHIONED Disney philosophy that they have implemented in the past year or so. Even by accident? I can’t. So, you’re right. It used to be good (philosophically). And I ain’t no more (philosophically). It’s just that simple!
Disney may be making some bad decisions lately (like the last 5 years ). However, not everything comes back to this - and most certainly not the elimination of SAB from pool hopping. Actually, this sounds quite a bit paranoid if you ask me, especially when applied to the whole SAB issue.I’m afraid you are wrong again, my friend. Everything does come down to this!! And even if you take SAB out of the equation (although I don’t believe you should) how do you explain AKL and Wilderness before it became a DVC? And we haven’t even discussed valet parking!!!

Matt is right!! They want to get you OUT of the resort! You can bet your sweet ----- Well, you can bet that ain’t gonna give you anything that keeps you IN the resorts!!! Not this administration anyway!!

PKS44, You are among those who’s posts I admire. Except this time!!
Poolhopping is a true perk- it costs next to nothing.NO!! This is an “entitlement”. I goes along with the original concept. It is something that should be taken for granted. It is a given. It is a right. Not legally. Maybe not even ethically. But in the spirit of the concept!! If they blow this one, which they already have, then they blow the whole concept. And that "concept" was what set DVC apart from just another time share!! It’s what set DVC apart from Ei$ner’s Disney®.

HorizonsFan
09-13-2002, 10:18 PM
Dave is absolutely right. It is one thing to say here are free tickets for life, but it is another to be given some free tickets and then decide you are entitled to them for life.
I'd like to go on record as saying that that's not exactly what I said...
This is what I said:
If Disney had offered this perq to begin with, and intimated that they would replace it with something of equal value I would expect that. They didn't offer this perq. They have no obligation to replace it with something of equal value.
I wasn't suggesting that Landbaron expected free tickets for life. I was suggesting that the free tickets cannot be classified as a Disney perckqu.
From the beginning (AFIK), Disney perckqus have always been things like discounted golf, discounts at restuarants, discounts on merchandise, etc. Those free passes that some OKW owners recieved actually made money for Disney because the developer paid for them.
FWIW, we are also gradually spending more of our vacation time at the resort enjoying the pool and the Boardwalk area. I've also developed an affinity for Disney golf courses, even though they cost me a small fortune in balls. I hope to be able to actually play a round with you one of these days, Matt...
My main point was somewhat deeper. I have a theory that goes something like this:
In the "good old days", folks thought Disney was spending a great deal of time and money to make the customers happy when, in reality Disney was simply so far ahead of the competition in terms of customer service that it only appeared that they were spending a great deal of time and money. Since then, the competition has learned the Disney secret and have caught up in terms of customer service making Disney look more average in comparison. Could this "good old days syndrome" be affecting our friends in Car 3 to a degree?
It's just a theory...
You all can disect it now. :)

DisneyKidds
09-13-2002, 11:15 PM
Let's just look at what IS, and ask if its what it SHOULD be. Now re-read my portion about whether to perk or not to perq. Start with the part that begins with "Moreso", and ends with "I don't".

Professor Raider - homework finished sir :). Now for my report. Do I think Disney could do more, should do more, would be wise to do more to reward their most loyal customers, be they DVC or not? Yes, I do. But that is not necessarily relevant to this discussion regarding the alleged dumbing down of DVC. You see, other than SAB (and the exclusion of AKL when it opened), Disney doesn't give DVC members any less than they used to.

If guests are flocking to something it means it has value to them. Another SAB at another resort would therefore increase the value at that resort. That makes the guests who are staying there happier, increases occupancy, and allows you to charge higher rates, if you wish. In and of itself, that is a good thing, is it not? Certainly not a ridiculous concept...

I agree with all of this. However, build more SAB's because that is what people want, because it is the right thing to do. Don't build them just to give displaced DVCers someplace new to hop to. I could be wrong, but that seemed to be what you were implying. I apologize if I misread - go ask Baron, wouldn't be the first time I did that.

A few (ok, more than a few) words for Baron.

I said, clearly, that the “owner” concept was dead.

.....because you no longer get free tickets and you can't hop to SAB, right? At least that is all I have seen in the way of evidence that the 'owner concept' is dead. BTW - DVC still touts the 'own a piece of the Magic' angle.

The tickets have NOTHING to do with this discussion.

THANK YOU! Thank you for taking this whole ticket thing out of the fray. They were never a per? and should not be part of the discussion. I do see the problem some might have on the whole ticket issue. It was made clear that tickets had an end date. Seems as thought it was clear they were a sales incentive and not a general per? of ownership. It does appear some were fed a line about 'other things that would replace the tickets', things which never materialized. However, this is outside of the ownership per? discussion. Maybe you should start a thread on the false advertising and misleading sales tactics of DVC. That would be an interesting one as guides say some things even today that are misleading to say the least.

So now we can talk the real issues - really the only issue - regarding the pool hopping per?. I still maintain that restrictions on SAB are not a bad thing. Disappointing, yes. Bad, no. Disney is trying to preserve the guest experience. That is a good thing. Yes, some will say the capacity thing is a crock as they have been at YC/BC and seen the pool be not very crowded. Other times it is. Perhaps Disney could have handled SAB better and found a way to allow limited pool hopping based on capacity. However, SAB had issues before BCV and they are only bound to get worse. Nuff said on SAB.

Now for AKL and Wilderness. There is no restriction on the Wilderness Lodge pool. AKL is not open to pool hopping. I am at a loss on that one. You have got me. However, I don't see the restriction on SAB and ALK as representing the death of pool hopping and the total elimination of DVC per?s (not that many true per?s ever existed, at least not that many things that couldn't be had through Disney club or Annual Passholder benefits). I'm sure you will launch into the slippery slope argument. First SAB, then AKL, what next? We've heard that argument before. However, I see no evidence to show it applies in this instance. I guess only time will tell. I do see this as another instance where, regarding AKL or WL, someone says 'hey, I can't go here' and forgets everywhere else they can go, and doesn't even bother to look at why there was a temporary restriction. You just can't keep some people happy, and it may have something to do with...........

this "good old days syndrome" affecting our friends in Car 3 to a degree

Good observation HF. I have always called it 'living in the past'. I'll let you go a few rounds with Baron on that one, as he and I have already danced around the ring quite a bit on the subject. Good luck.

Baron, humor me. I think I asked once, but I'll ask again. Now that tickets are off the table as an eliminated per?, other than the SAB and AKL issue, what is it that leads you to say that the 'owner concept' is dead and buried. What did you get as an owner before that you don't get now?

HorizonsFan
09-13-2002, 11:28 PM
I'll let you go a few rounds with Baron on that one, as he and I have already danced around the ring quite a bit on the subject.
Landbaron and I have also "gone a few rounds" as you say, but it's been awhile...
I've always enjoyed the good-natured debate with my old friend that I've never met. (even when he uses all-caps to tell me I'm WRONG! ;) )

DisneyKidds
09-14-2002, 12:06 AM
Then lets call it tag team Baron wrestling. You're in on the 'good old days syndrome' while I avoid those caps for a while :). I'm sure the good Baron will throw some other caps my way ;).

DVC-Landbaron
09-14-2002, 12:34 AM
Maybe you should start a thread on the false advertising and misleading sales tactics of DVC.Nah! I’ll leave that to Rich on the DVC board. He does a very good job!!!
I still maintain that restrictions on SAB are not a bad thing.I do. And fairly unnecessary for most of the year. AND, if they’d enforce the rule for the true gate crashers they’d eliminate a great deal of the over crowding! Instead they blame the DVC and take this “right of ownership” away ALL YEAR!! That’s just p[lain silly. I was perfectly content to play it by ear. Call ahead. See how the day went. Play second fiddle to the guests at the Beach and Yacht Club. But now I’m not even in the band!! NOT A CHANCE to go there on a light day. NEVER!! RESTRICTED!! Sorry. That doesn’t add up to ‘owner’ in my book!
Disappointing, yes. Bad, no. Disney is trying to preserve the guest experience.How is this any better than the “if there’s room” policy of last year? You mean to tell me that suddenly, when the census is down, we bad DVCers have overrun the pool!! Come on!
Nuff said on SAB.Not nearly enough, my friend.
Now for AKL and Wilderness. There is no restriction on the Wilderness Lodge pool.No. Now there isn’t. But when it first opened there was. Why was that?
AKL is not open to pool hopping. I am at a loss on that one.So am I!!! So much for the “owner” concept!! I guess they mean an “owner” of Disney back before the concept died. But not an “owner” of anything afterwards!! Pretty stupid, isn’t it?!?!?!
You have got me. However, I don't see the restriction on SAB and ALK as representing the death of pool hopping and the total elimination of DVC per?s (not that many true per?s ever existed, at least not that many things that couldn't be had through Disney club or Annual Passholder benefits).I never said it was the death of pool hopping (although I think it may go that way). What I said was that it was the Death of the OWNER concept. And it is. Plain and simple. Otherwise we’d be swimming in AKL! Can you explain to this guy who clearly doesn’t get it, why we can’t?
I'm sure you will launch into the slippery slope argument. First SAB, then AKL, what next?Yep! You are there already!!
forgets everywhere else they can go, and doesn't even bother to look at why there was a temporary restriction.So now it’s “temporary”? I didn’t know that!! If that’s really true I’ll do a little apologizing!! (Not much though. There’s still AKL and Wilderness when it first opened!)


Mr. Fans,
In the "good old days", folks thought Disney was spending a great deal of time and money to make the customers happy when, in reality Disney was simply so far ahead of the competition in terms of customer service that it only appeared that they were spending a great deal of time and money. Since then, the competition has learned the Disney secret and have caught up in terms of customer service making Disney look more average in comparison. Could this "good old days syndrome" be affecting our friends in Car 3 to a degree?
It's just a theory...And a very good theory!! And it is one that I’ve thought about, long and hard. But I really don’t think that has much to do with it. Let me clarify.

I think that what you say is very true. Disney did spend an inordinate amount of time, energy and cash providing service that was light-years ahead of the competition. In recent years, as you note, the competition (really only Universal) has closed that gap. And I think that if Disney had maintained their standards and held fast to the Walt philosophy, they’d still be hundreds of thousands of miles ahead, but no longer light-years. And then I might agree that I would be worried about the closing of the gap and might indeed fall into that trap. But it is not so. And I really haven’t had the opportunity to think about it that way. Because it is clear, to virtually EVERYONE, that they have let their standards slip to an all time low, have totally forgotten just what their product really is and they ignore their philosophy. THAT is much more important than how an obscure Baron remembers Disney.

hopemax
09-14-2002, 01:28 AM
Since then, the competition has learned the Disney secret and have caught up in terms of customer service making Disney look more average in comparison.

The main problem with this theory is that there hasn't really been that much talk about improving standards at the competition. Certainly Universal has been receiving more kudos in the "attractions" department, but in customer service? There has been some talk recently, since the arrival of Barry Diller primarily, but the contention is that Disney has been on the decline for a lot more than the past year. There's been a lot more talk that Universal Hollywood, Knott's Berry Farm and Six Flags customer service is also going in the wrong direction. In fact that's been used as "proof" of why we shouldn't get upset about the slide at Disney. "That's just where society is right now, customer service is down EVERYWHERE, just be happy Disney is still giving you what they are." And to that I will use Planogirl's response which I saw in another thread. Phooey. :rolleyes:

caseymaureen
09-14-2002, 07:43 PM
I know, as a DVC member, that quite awhile ago we lost "general" pool hopping privledges and could only pool hop when staying at our DVC resort. If you are staying at another resort or outside of Disney, no more pool hopping.

HorizonsFan
09-15-2002, 09:32 AM
I believe that the "rule" says that you can only pool hop while staying on points at a DVC resort (not just your home resort). If you are staying at a WDW resort, even on points, or at a DVC resort on cash pool hopping is not available.
The main problem with this theory is that there hasn't really been that much talk about improving standards at the competition.
I probably wasn't clear. What I meant was that service oriented businesses in general (not just Disney's direct competition) were not as concerned with customer satisfaction as Disney was. Over the past 20 years or so, the service industry has learned that a happy customer is a repeat customer. Many companies have literally taken lessons from Disney in the form of seminars and have put those lessons into practice.
I think that Disney hasn't fallen so much as the service industry has risen. Therefore they look more average in comparison. People expect more from the service industry than they did 20 years ago.

ncligs
09-15-2002, 03:17 PM
Very intresting thread(just read all of it). I am a DVC member and so are 4 other members of my family. Not one of us has ever pool hopped.http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/baby21.gif

colleen costello
09-17-2002, 10:29 AM
This whole discussion is fascinating. My comments? I hope the "optimists" are right and pool-hopping is NOT a goner. We enjoy the privelege (by using that term I avoided the need to pick a spelling for that other P-word...). It seems that in general, DVC'ers are used to, and enjoy, the priveleges that are offered whenever we buy DVC. We are recent members -- we never had free tix so we don't miss them. But pool-hopping WAS a big part of what seemed so special to us when we decided to buy. My family DOES enjoy pool-hopping. We always have. To lose the privelege would make me sad.

When we visit WDW, we don't have the energy to do the parks every day. We do a "day on, day off" thing. No matter where we stay, and how great the pool, we love to visit other resorts. For example, we always visit the Poly to rent boats and have a meal. While DH has one child out on the lake, I swim for a bit with the other child. Then we swap kids. We don't stay long and we don't do this every day. But the chance to enjoy the surroundings at the Polynesian is a special part of our trip -- we ALWAYS do this when visiting WDW.

I am a bit suspicious about something. Notice no one at Disney has EVER said "Don't come to the Poly and eat? Don't come to the Poly and RENT a boat? If I visit there from OKW or BCV, I am theoretically crowding the boat rental area -- making the line LONGER for the people staying at the Poly. Yet never is there a problem with me visiting and taking part in activities that COST MONEY. It's OK to rent anywhere! This makes me suspicious of the whole claim of "crowding" in any sense. I understand that the pool is not the "equivalent" of the boats or restaurants, but I think you all catch my drift here. I have always thought pool-hopping is a nice way to scope out a resort for your next visit. And we always spend money at the resorts we visit. Poolside drinks alone generate tons of money for the resort!

Comments?