Disney seems to be full everywhere during the week

[Dean]

But they were selling the "Disney" timeshare which isn't suppose to be just like every other timeshare it was suppose to be better. I just see the restrictions on resale benefits hurting the DVC brand because now everyone who comes on to Disboards now hears don't count on the benefits even if you buy direct because DVC has either taken them away or changed them. I understand wanting to differentiate direct from resale, but if a new buyer can't count on the benefits for the 50 years of the contract why buy direct? Just seams short sighted....... but not crooked.

Sales hype, buyer assumption and lack of due diligence. It's just a timeshare and always has been, anyone who thinks otherwise has been fooled in one way or another. A buyer can only count on what's in the legal paperwork and they should know that going in. That same paperwork specifies that other options are not guaranteed and could change. In reality this could even happen to those who bought direct and/or have qualified points, esp if they were to institute a VIP program. In order to differentiate in such a way to get potential buyers attention, it really must hurt if you don't have the option, dancing around the edges to make everyone happy won't work. DVC owes NOTHING to a new buyer who didn't buy from them other than to manage the timeshare in accord with the legalities involved. They didn't have to grandfather resale buyers with either of the applicable changes, there was no legal requirement to do so. I believe the idea of "hurting the brand" is more in the mind of some more than anything else. Certainly there's nothing about the 2 applicable changes that's inappropriate or underhanded. Everyone who bought going forward knew what they were losing and if they didn't know before, were on notice that further changes could occur.

 

[ziravan]

Sales hype, buyer assumption and lack of due diligence. It's just a timeshare and always has been, anyone who thinks otherwise has been fooled in one way or another. A buyer can only count on what's in the legal paperwork and they should know that going in. That same paperwork specifies that other options are not guaranteed and could change. In reality this could even happen to those who bought direct and/or have qualified points, esp if they were to institute a VIP program. In order to differentiate in such a way to get potential buyers attention, it really must hurt if you don't have the option, dancing around the edges to make everyone happy won't work. DVC owes NOTHING to a new buyer who didn't buy from them other than to manage the timeshare in accord with the legalities involved. They didn't have to grandfather resale buyers with either of the applicable changes, there was no legal requirement to do so. I believe the idea of "hurting the brand" is more in the mind of some more than anything else. Certainly there's nothing about the 2 applicable changes that's inappropriate or underhanded. Everyone who bought going forward knew what they were losing and if they didn't know before, were on notice that further changes could occur.

Maybe it's not inappropriate or underhanded but I do believe it's short-sighted.

Yes. DVC is just another timeshare.

But to the extent branding and marketing has tied DVC to Disney pixie dust, their sales have been phenomenal.

There's a difference between what DVC can do and what they should do.

DVC moving to becoming "just another timeshare" and distancing itself from "We're different, we're Disney" is not in its best interest.

That "sales hype" has worked great for DVC so far.

Sure DVC instituted new rules in April and their sales took off. But. They also had to implement a discount, something not done with VGF.

I agree with you that DVC should do what's best for DVC. I disagree that blowing off its branding as being something different is in that best interest.

 

[Matty B13]

What!!! Mickey and Donald aren't coming to our DVC unit to turn down our beds!!! I'm shocked! Shocked!!

 

[Dean]

Maybe it's not inappropriate or underhanded but I do believe it's short-sighted.

Yes. DVC is just another timeshare.

But to the extent branding and marketing has tied DVC to Disney pixie dust, their sales have been phenomenal.

There's a difference between what DVC can do and what they should do.

DVC moving to becoming "just another timeshare" and distancing itself from "We're different, we're Disney" is not in its best interest.

That "sales hype" has worked great for DVC so far.

Sure DVC instituted new rules in April and their sales took off. But. They also had to implement a discount, something not done with VGF.

I agree with you that DVC should do what's best for DVC. I disagree that blowing off its branding as being something different is in that best interest.

Sure there's a line they could cross over that will hurt the company and hurt the product. However, I feel the location of that line is far different than many here do. I believe one has to separate out the hype and sales process from the product in large part. I believe they're a lot DVD can do to hurt those with unqualified points that hasn't been done and would still be appropriate. As long as they stick to the contractual obligation and run the resorts fairly well, I doubt it'll be an issue. With any change there will be losers but usually winners as well and some of those losers will vote with the $$$ but unless the numbers are enough to hurt DVD or such changes actually give Disney a black eye, it won't matter. There are also a LOT of things they could do differently in the sales process that would increase their sales numbers and many of these would still be appropriate and professional. I'm sure there's a tipping point but overall I think DVC members and potential members have proven their sheep being led to slaughter, happily and willingly.

What!!! Mickey and Donald aren't coming to our DVC unit to turn down our beds!!! I'm shocked! Shocked!!

I know you're being sarcastic but in reality your statement isn't that far off from how many have looked at DVC going in and how unrealistic many were (still are) in their approach and expectations. Here's one example that's fairly broad related to then current members. A few years ago the valet parking contract was up. Historically it was done by Disney then it was contracted out. During the entire preceding time, DVC members at DVC resorts were allowed to valet park for free. With the contract being up for renewal, the valet company wasn't willing to continue it as an add on just to have the business and apparently weren't willing to discount it. So DVCMC was faced with the options of terminating the perk or paying full price for each member. Clearly there was only ONE reasonable option, terminate the free valet parking, which they did but did poorly BTW. You may want to go back and find that main thread if you have an hour to kill. I am just amazed that some really felt the other members should pay for their free valet parking.

 

[Matty B13]

I expect a clean, undamaged room and for the appliances to work. Seems like we are hearing this might not be the case all the time. That has me a little disappointed and concerned.

 

[Deb & Bill]

I expect a clean, undamaged room and for the appliances to work. Seems like we are hearing this might not be the case all the time. That has me a little disappointed and concerned.

If you get such a room, contact Housekeeping and Maintenance. Don't call the front desk, you get the call center. When we had problems, they have usually been taken care of almost immediately by Housekeeping and Maintenance.

 

[disneynutz]

If you get such a room, contact Housekeeping and Maintenance. Don't call the front desk, you get the call center. When we had problems, they have usually been taken care of almost immediately by Housekeeping and Maintenance.

Good advice but IMO these problems shouldn't happen as often as they do.

Bill

 

[Deb & Bill]

Good advice but IMO these problems shouldn't happen as often as they do.

Bill

Totally agree. But not every guest is an owner who thinks they can help keep the resort maintained. Some just think they are in a hotel and can do what they like to the room.

 

[Dean]

Good advice but IMO these problems shouldn't happen as often as they do.

Bill

Also Disney is not as responsive or efficient in fixing such issues as other timeshares I deal with. This has been too consistent over many years and stays (both ways) to be coincidence.

 

[Matty B13]

If you get such a room, contact Housekeeping and Maintenance. Don't call the front desk, you get the call center. When we had problems, they have usually been taken care of almost immediately by Housekeeping and Maintenance.

Thanks for the info.

 

[freediverdude]

Sure there's a line they could cross over that will hurt the company and hurt the product. However, I feel the location of that line is far different than many here do. I believe one has to separate out the hype and sales process from the product in large part. I believe they're a lot DVD can do to hurt those with unqualified points that hasn't been done and would still be appropriate. As long as they stick to the contractual obligation and run the resorts fairly well, I doubt it'll be an issue. With any change there will be losers but usually winners as well and some of those losers will vote with the $$$ but unless the numbers are enough to hurt DVD or such changes actually give Disney a black eye, it won't matter. There are also a LOT of things they could do differently in the sales process that would increase their sales numbers and many of these would still be appropriate and professional. I'm sure there's a tipping point but overall I think DVC members and potential members have proven their sheep being led to slaughter, happily and willingly.

I know you're being sarcastic but in reality your statement isn't that far off from how many have looked at DVC going in and how unrealistic many were (still are) in their approach and expectations. Here's one example that's fairly broad related to then current members. A few years ago the valet parking contract was up. Historically it was done by Disney then it was contracted out. During the entire preceding time, DVC members at DVC resorts were allowed to valet park for free. With the contract being up for renewal, the valet company wasn't willing to continue it as an add on just to have the business and apparently weren't willing to discount it. So DVCMC was faced with the options of terminating the perk or paying full price for each member. Clearly there was only ONE reasonable option, terminate the free valet parking, which they did but did poorly BTW. You may want to go back and find that main thread if you have an hour to kill. I am just amazed that some really felt the other members should pay for their free valet parking.

I'm not sure I would categorize myself as "sheep being led to slaughter", lol, but I agree that Disney does have a more pleasant way of emptying my wallet than some other companies.

 

[freediverdude]

Totally agree. But not every guest is an owner who thinks they can help keep the resort maintained. Some just think they are in a hotel and can do what they like to the room.

This past stay a few weeks ago in the building where my contract is at the Poly, I think the idea of being an owner was finally hitting me. I would see something out of place or a piece of trash, and kind of realize, "hey, I partially own this building!", and correct the problem. I guess I'm gradually turning into a real DVC owner instead of a renter/resort guest.

 

[disneynutz]

Sure there's a line they could cross over that will hurt the company and hurt the product. However, I feel the location of that line is far different than many here do. I believe one has to separate out the hype and sales process from the product in large part. I believe they're a lot DVD can do to hurt those with unqualified points that hasn't been done and would still be appropriate. As long as they stick to the contractual obligation and run the resorts fairly well, I doubt it'll be an issue. With any change there will be losers but usually winners as well and some of those losers will vote with the $$$ but unless the numbers are enough to hurt DVD or such changes actually give Disney a black eye, it won't matter. There are also a LOT of things they could do differently in the sales process that would increase their sales numbers and many of these would still be appropriate and professional. I'm sure there's a tipping point but overall I think DVC members and potential members have proven their sheep being led to slaughter, happily and willingly.

I know you're being sarcastic but in reality your statement isn't that far off from how many have looked at DVC going in and how unrealistic many were (still are) in their approach and expectations. Here's one example that's fairly broad related to then current members. A few years ago the valet parking contract was up. Historically it was done by Disney then it was contracted out. During the entire preceding time, DVC members at DVC resorts were allowed to valet park for free. With the contract being up for renewal, the valet company wasn't willing to continue it as an add on just to have the business and apparently weren't willing to discount it. So DVCMC was faced with the options of terminating the perk or paying full price for each member. Clearly there was only ONE reasonable option, terminate the free valet parking, which they did but did poorly BTW. You may want to go back and find that main thread if you have an hour to kill. I am just amazed that some really felt the other members should pay for their free valet parking.

IMO the real issue is the lack of information and the way that they do business. When we lost free valet service at BWV, it happened overnight without notice. Members parked for free and the next day were billed by the valet service, no word from DVC until later. When Bilby was made DVC VP after Lewis was fired, at the association meeting she spoke of "transparency and change". Apparently the DVC top brass felt that there were transparency issues, unfortunately she was removed after only 18 months.

Bill

 

[Dean]

IMO the real issue is the lack of information and the way that they do business. When we lost free valet service at BWV, it happened overnight without notice. Members parked for free and the next day were billed by the valet service, no word from DVC until later. When Bilby was made DVC VP after Lewis was fired, at the association meeting she spoke of "transparency and change". Apparently the DVC top brass felt that there were transparency issues, unfortunately she was removed after only 18 months.

Bill

There's no question that they do many small things poorly. This includes that they don't handle villa issues well, consistently or often timely. The decision on the valet parking really left them no other choice but the implementation was dramatically poor. As I said at the time they should have announce it, notified members at check in (likely with a board or posters) and given a lead in time, maybe 2 weeks. Checking in with free valet parking and checkout out without it and without warning was dramatically poor judgement and completely avoidable. A number of maintenance relocations were handled similarly or allowed to be when they were left up to the resorts. Personally I don't give as much credit to some in charge at DVC or blame to others as many here do. A single manager isn't going to turn the ship on a dime. The sad thing is it really doesn't take any more work to do the things in question well, it just takes planning, leadership and just a little backbone. DVC needs to be far more proactive and far less reactive but this includes some areas like reallocations and reduced flexibility for compensations and returned points at times.