An end to pool hopping for DVC

[raidermatt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!! 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]

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]

Sorry Mr. Kidds. I didn't mean to slight you, but Scoop needed dealing with first! 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]

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 )

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 [go ahead, use that sarcastic pseudo dig on myself against me, I fully expect it ] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wow Matt, you have gotten as long winded as our good Baron .

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 . 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]

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]

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]

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 way

I 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .