Designing an Equitable Allocation System

[childsplay]

How much do you want to bet that the First is often caused by the Second?

Agreed. (in retrospect I probably should have rank ordered them)
Unreasonable members set in motion a chain of events which have a much greater chance of creating disappointment at the far end.
And let us not forget that "unreasonable" depending on how you choose to define it is what lead to the switch from preassigned rooms to room ready. Because I'm fairly confident that room ready didn't spring from the a ground swell of cheery chrous like the Who's around the tree in Whoville. Rather it came from people at the front desk saying things like "You mean you don't have one clean studio in the whole place?!? It's 1:00 in the afternoon!! What has the cleaning crew been doing for the last 6 hours?!? Management doesn't have to witness too many episodes like that in the lobby before "room ready" starts sounding pretty good.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

Crisi,

. There should be no requesting anyhting and getting it later. Really luck would dictate what room you get. Later arrivers might get that just cleaned room with the perfect location for them.
DAVE

I am having trouble understanding your post fully. Is the above part of what you are recommending?

I just dont see how luck should determine how one gets a room. At some point a late comer might get their perfect room, but as it gets later and later the chance of them getting any request dramatically decreases until its probably just about nil.

it really is sort of surprising to me that there are so many people who are against knowing ahead of time exactly what type of requests they will have met for their vacation.

 

[Dean]

Exactly. It's not a question: The timeshare is designed to withstand a very specific level of vacancy. There is no way to change that level of vacancy without violating the master deed.

Maybe we're thinking the same thing. The planned occupancy is 100% year round on sold out resorts. But 100% isn't really 100%, it's more like 96%. And DVC doesn't care if rooms go empty, the rooms are paid for ahead of time. They do care if rooms go empty that have been designated for cash for breakage or cash equivalent trades. They'd be just as happy if people lost part of their points. As a matter of fact, it's my opinion that DVC actually built in a certain expectation of a certain percentage of lost points into their original plans.

It is my opinion that occupancy levels can be maintained and guarantee NS for MOST, if not all, members. Going all NS would fix this issue, IMO, it's inevitable it will happen for all Disney resorts, just a matter of time.

Room ready would work fine if they just put an effort into doing it, thus far I haven't seen evidence that they do, at least not consistently. Crisi slightly misquoted me, I know she didn't mean too. I'll say again that the ADA doesn't necessarily apply to timeshare the way it does to hotels or restaurants. It's more under the codes that apply to condo's for most timeshares. How this applies to DVC is in question since they are run more like hotels. But don't expect to show up, quote the ADA and get what you want.

 

[Dean]

Thanks for taking the time to post. I can't agree here with your ranking system. Someone staying on cash is every bit as entitled to a good room as a DVC Member.

Dave, why would a cash member be treated as an equal to an owner at a timeshare? I don't know of any timeshare in the world where that is truly the case though some are better than others. At most, guests of an owner are treated as a owner in most ways, many times in all ways. Cash renters from the resort are usually given second fiddle to owners at that resort and many times after internal exchangers as well, as it should be, IMO. There should be a reason to own to get the full benefits.

How much do you want to bet that the First is often caused by the Second?

No doubt this has been true in the past. Now there's no way to know because they essentially don't put any effort into the requests, at least not consistently. I just don't see not trying as a reasonable option, and that's where we are now, IMO.

 

[crisi]

Dave

Thanks for taking the time to post. I can't agree here with your ranking system. Someone staying on cash is every bit as entitled to a good room as a DVC Member.

It isn't a system. Its a brainstormed list of all the different requests and people making those requests a room requester might get. I put them in no order other than the order I thought them up in.

As I've said, I have some opinions on the matter, but many of them are situational. I'm not sure a cash guest should be treated differently (though part of me does agree with Dean - part of me doesn't), its just a possible criteria for use.

 

[OneMoreTry]

Crisi,
My intention was that location would be divided according to what DVC identifies as commonly requested/popular sites. I'm sure that any assigner could tell you quickly what those are for any resort. So it might include "close to Hospitality House." Or instead of that it might be "water view", "Epcot view", "close to elevator", "fairway view" or "close to any bus stop." I think 3 or 4 categories at each resort would account for most requests and then the rest would be lumped under "no location request." At Boardwalk such a system is in place. It just so happens that one "request" requires less points.



There is no doubt in my mind that assigning priority according to time of booking is the fairest. Cash customers, too (although I doubt most of them would book real early and have many requests). I think the only person who might provide a decent argument to the contrary would be Nietzsche and he's dead.

Room ready is completely unfair. You might convince me to grudgingly accept first-come-first served. That is more fair than room ready. Then I could plan to arrive at 9 am with everyone else and get on the list.

Room ready means that some lucky duck arriving at 936 am may get the room I wanted that wasn't ready when I arrived at 913. That stinks.

The current system stinks because I don't know the rules. I get there at 9 and nothing is "room ready" (at BWV) and have to wait until 4 for what I'm told is the room I was "assigned."

It's nice to agree with some people for once.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Crisi,
My intention was that location would be divided according to what DVC identifies as commonly requested/popular sites. I'm sure that any assigner could tell you quickly what those are for any resort. So it might include "close to Hospitality House." Or instead of that it might be "water view", "Epcot view", "close to elevator", "fairway view" or "close to any bus stop." I think 3 or 4 categories at each resort would account for most requests and then the rest would be lumped under "no location request." At Boardwalk such a system is in place. It just so happens that one "request" requires less points.



There is no doubt in my mind that assigning priority according to time of booking is the fairest. Cash customers, too (although I doubt most of them would book real early and have many requests). I think the only person who might provide a decent argument to the contrary would be Nietzsche and he's dead.

Room ready is completely unfair. You might convince me to grudgingly accept first-come-first served. That is more fair than room ready. Then I could plan to arrive at 9 am with everyone else and get on the list.

Room ready means that some lucky duck arriving at 936 am may get the room I wanted that wasn't ready when I arrived at 913. That stinks.

The current system stinks because I don't know the rules. I get there at 9 and nothing is "room ready" (at BWV) and have to wait until 4 for what I'm told is the room I was "assigned."

It's nice to agree with some people for once.

Very good concise description of what the problem is. Unfortunately our 9 pages of rehtoric about how we feel about it probably isn't going to change the way it's done. What we should probably be doing is trying to figure out how we deal with it.

BTW, I agree with Dean on this one...Owners SHOULD have priority over renters and cash customers. It is OUR timeshare, after all.

 

[bicker]

Now if I were the Supreme Leader, I'd just ban the internet. Ta Daaaa! Problem solved. (You can't be doing magic if everyone knows how all the tricks are done)!

However, that's really part of the issue. It's not only impossible to "do magic" in the Internet Age (Disney found that out about seven or eight years ago), but it means that a company is actually punished for going the extra mile for any one customer (because word gets around, and many customers expect that every extra mile that has ever been "gone" for any other customer, will be "gone" for them).

Dave, why would a cash member be treated as an equal to an owner at a timeshare?

Let me ask what I think is a related question: Why is Disney exercising the ROFR so much these days? Before you say that it is to prop-up the price they can get for SSR, think about where folks are reporting encountering the ROFR issue.... BWV most often, yes? Sure smells to me that Disney is exercising is right to buy-back a significant number of points in BWV to use as part of their rental inventory, because the economy is getting better and people can afford it, and people are willing to pay a premium for the extra space and location combined. Now that's just a guess, but if true, it sure makes sense that Disney also exercise its right to provide its cash guests as much priority as they offer their points guests. I wouldn't pay $540 per night for my room in January, but gosh if I was paying that much, I would be livid if I found out that I got the crappiest room in the place.

Owners SHOULD have priority over renters and cash customers.

Disney is an owner, and as an owner I believe they have legal right to assert owner-level privilege on behalf of their cash customers.

 

[fishermouse]

Your analogy is not EXACTLY true. We reserved AKL Savanna view, non-smoking for cash a couple years ago. Our flight got delayed, and we got in very late. The only room available was a HA. We took it, and it was fine, but definitely a dissapointment.

I must be one of the LUCKY people since I have always gotten what I asked for. Even when I make no request (other than non-smoking) I've always gotten good rooms. It's nice to walk out on the balcony the first time and get a veiw you've never seen before.
Hope they gave you a refund on the svanna view, if I remember correctly you paid extra for it....

I've neverbeen given a HA room but it sounds like the only difference is you get a large shower (could be fun).. question is in a one or two bedroom do you still get the whirlpool in the master bath? what are the other differences.
Maybe I should ask this in another subject thread.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Let me ask what I think is a related question: Why is Disney exercising the ROFR so much these days? Before you say that it is to prop-up the price they can get for SSR, think about where folks are reporting encountering the ROFR issue.... BWV most often, yes? Sure smells to me that Disney is exercising is right to buy-back a significant number of points in BWV to use as part of their rental inventory, because the economy is getting better and people can afford it, and people are willing to pay a premium for the extra space and location combined. Now that's just a guess, but if true, it sure makes sense that Disney also exercise its right to provide its cash guests as much priority as they offer their points guests. I wouldn't pay $540 per night for my room in January, but gosh if I was paying that much, I would be livid if I found out that I got the crappiest room in the place.

Well, I paid a heck of a lot more than $540 bucks and I would be livid to always get the leftovers just because I can't check in until late!

 

[bicker]

I wouldn't pay $540 per night for my room in January, but gosh if I was paying that much, I would be livid if I found out that I got the crappiest room in the place.

Well, I paid a heck of a lot more than $540 bucks

per night?

And just to clarify, what I mean is that I would be livid if I found out that I was predestined to get the crappiest room in the place. If I happened to get the crappiest room, due to the luck of the draw, or because I got there last, or the way the room assigner fit things together based on preferences resulted in me getting that room, then I wouldn't be livid.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

per night?

And just to clarify, what I mean is that I would be livid if I found out that I was predestined to get the crappiest room in the place. If I happened to get the crappiest room, due to the luck of the draw, or because I got there last, or the way the room assigner fit things together based on preferences resulted in me getting that room, then I wouldn't be livid.

just because you dont get to get guarenteed requests doesnt mean you get the crappiest room. The selling point of a time of booking system to these potential future members is that IF you become a member you can get your requests GUARENTEED based on booking time. So no luck of the draw involved, who couldnt understand that?

 

[dianeschlicht]

just because you dont get to get guarenteed requests doesnt mean you get the crappiest room. The selling point of a time of booking system to these potential future members is that IF you become a member you can get your requests GUARENTEED based on booking time. So no luck of the draw involved, who couldnt understand that?

Here here!

 

[bicker]

Here here!

I understand your point about predestination being perhaps too strong of a characterization. What I meant was that folks paying $540 per night would be more likely to experience dissatisfaction if they were at the bottom of a priority list for rooms. It's not a hard-and-fast criterion for giving those folks for priority, but it is a very serious consideration for a business like Disney that hopes to get these folks to pay $540 per night next year, too. Again, the point is that Disney is an owner, and as an owner I believe they have legal right to assert owner-level privilege on behalf of their cash customers.

 

[dianeschlicht]

LOL! No offense intended, but maybe I shouldn't be discussing things with someone called "bicker"! Sorry, your screen name just struck me funny....carry on.

 

[Dean]

However, that's really part of the issue. It's not only impossible to "do magic" in the Internet Age (Disney found that out about seven or eight years ago), but it means that a company is actually punished for going the extra mile for any one customer (because word gets around, and many customers expect that every extra mile that has ever been "gone" for any other customer, will be "gone" for them).

Let me ask what I think is a related question: Why is Disney exercising the ROFR so much these days? Before you say that it is to prop-up the price they can get for SSR, think about where folks are reporting encountering the ROFR issue.... BWV most often, yes? Sure smells to me that Disney is exercising is right to buy-back a significant number of points in BWV to use as part of their rental inventory, because the economy is getting better and people can afford it, and people are willing to pay a premium for the extra space and location combined. Now that's just a guess, but if true, it sure makes sense that Disney also exercise its right to provide its cash guests as much priority as they offer their points guests. I wouldn't pay $540 per night for my room in January, but gosh if I was paying that much, I would be livid if I found out that I got the crappiest room in the place.

Disney is an owner, and as an owner I believe they have legal right to assert owner-level privilege on behalf of their cash customers.

Dave, Disney is not the owner at the sold out resorts. They will be again, but they are not now. The members could even get together and vote Disney out if they truly wanted.

As for ROFR, I don't think Disney makes a dime on it, I suspect it actually costs them money if you look at direct costs only. Because of the personnel and marketing issues, I'd think a spread of $20 min would be needed just to break even. And since any cash rooms have to go through CRO, which takes a cut that doesn't go to DVD, all rooms are not rented out AND DVD is actually competing with DVC (members trades and breakage) as well as other Disney rooms; no way they'll make money on the cash rooms rentals. That's esp true since DVC purposefully shies away from the highest demand times for rentals.

 

[bicker]

Dave, Disney is not the owner at the sold out resorts.

They retain 4% ownership of the sold-out resorts, and are apparently acquiring a greater interest in BWV, via ROFR.

 

[Dean]

I understand your point about predestination being perhaps too strong of a characterization. What I meant was that folks paying $540 per night would be more likely to experience dissatisfaction if they were at the bottom of a priority list for rooms. It's not a hard-and-fast criterion for giving those folks for priority, but it is a very serious consideration for a business like Disney that hopes to get these folks to pay $540 per night next year, too. Again, the point is that Disney is an owner, and as an owner I believe they have legal right to assert owner-level privilege on behalf of their cash customers.

It's true they might vote with their feet. Or they might just buy in because they would have more priority. If DVC is more (or less) interested in pleasing cash guests vs members, to heck with them, I'll move on. But right and wrong puts members at that resort at the head of the line, no matter what. I can trade in much of the year at a fraction of the cost of owning. I know I'll be lower on the ladder as an exchanger, just like at most any other timeshare on the planet. Last time I did it we got a standard view at BWV. Fortunately there are few truly bad rooms that one could predict, dumpster views maybe the exception. The reality is that most cash guests don't know that much about requests and would be happy anywhere. And they could easily have the ability to pay more for a better room. Using BWV as an example, you could charge more for preferred view and even more for BW view. That way a guest has a way of guaranteeing their room type, something that members have but only the last couple of years. And something they don't have at any other DVC resort except for VB Inn rooms.

DVC having the ability to rent out the rooms is of marginal service to members. It fuels the exchange programs other than II and BVTC but given the value (or lack of) it's hard to argue that's really a benefit. It reduces fees due to the breakage inventory, but the benefit are marginal and the dollars small. At most timeshares that rent out rooms, they allow the members to reserve then rent out through the company for a fee of course.

 

[Dean]

They retain 4% ownership of the sold-out resorts, and are apparently acquiring a greater interest in BWV, via ROFR.

The 4% is leeway, not to rent out. Don't kid yourself about what they own and why.

 

[bicker]

Back at you. They're renting rooms in DVC properties. They're allowed to do it in the master deed and they're doing it.