DrTomorrow said:
This comes up every now and then; here's a (true) parable. We used to go to a certain restaurant with another couple - good friends for decades. We loved the food & atmosphere; however, at one point, we all agreed that the quality of both the food and service was declining. DW and I simply suggested that we "vote with our feet" and find another restaurant. we now dine at another restaurant. So I have no problem with suggestions that anyone who is not happy with service take their business elsewhere - DVC included.
DrTomorrow,
When walking is the only avenue available, then yes sometimes that's the only way to address the situation. But I would offer that the aforementioned car example (car quality goes down...don't buy) and your restaurant example are intrinsicly different from PKS44's DVC inquiry.
If I am a customer of a restaurant with no financial interest other than that of a patron customer, then I probably have no more leverage than to vote with my feet. If I am a stockholder of said restaurant, then my rights and avenues of remedy become much broader. Comparatively, if I am a non-owner renter at a DVC property, my avenue of remedy is probably limited to discontinuation of future patronage. However, as an owner of a DVC property, my rights and avenues of remedy are much broaader and the obligations of Disney to respond to my inquiries much more defined.
In short, while owners could vote with their feet, they have far more productive and non-destructive options at their disposal. Why not work constructively to ask the question and seek a remedy? The alternative (walking away/selling) does nothing to improve the situation...it leaves the potential problem intact...and only serves to degrade the quality and property value of all of our investments. If you were a stockholder or partner of the restaurant you mentioned, would you so readily walk away on the restaurant or would you work constructively to protect your investment?
DrTomorrow said:
Will you still champion such folks if Disney finds out that they've been undercharging certain DVC owners for years and assesses a significant fee to rectify the situation? Don't get me wrong - I'm Voltairian on this: I support PKS44's right to question. I just don't understand the motivation.........
Yes I will...because I think the danger of not questioning or stifling questioning of potential errors or disparities far outweighs the risk of any downside. One thing I have learned over the past 12 years as an owner is that Disney's subsidiary divisions operate almost as independent entities. You would think that DVC, Disney resorts,
DCL, Disney Transportation, etc. all operate as one happy family under the Disney umbrella. In fact, they operate almost as independently as GM and Ford. They negotiate with each other in protection of their own interests, they have their own independent managements structures, and they maintain their own independent accounting structures. As a result, when DVC and Disney resorts independently each go to Disney Transportation to negotiate transportation expenses, do you really think they go with the intent of helping each other? No...they go to negotiate the best deal they can acquire for the line of business they represent. Don't think for a minute that Disney Resorts wouldn't jump on a chance to swing a deal that cuts their costs and shifts some of the transportation burden onto another line of business (e.g. DVC). So now the business owner side of me looks at the situation and says, "who is the bigger business unit (Disney resorts or DVC). Who has more assets and resources...who can employ the best accountants, attorneys, and negotiators...who has the most leverage with Disney Transportation...answer---Disney resorts)". Don't get me wrong...I have the utmost respect for the people that represent us as DVC owners. I just have a suspicion that the biggest players (Disney resorts) are working towards their best interests (and that may not be to DVC owner's benefit all the time).
So while I understand that you don't see PKS44's motivation, I guess I do understand PKS44's motivation...or at least why I would be motivated to ask the question. There are other business entities within Disney that would benefit from shifting their transportation burden away from their business unit and onto others (DVC for example). While the DVC folks have the best of intentions, they may be outgunned at times or have honestly missed salient points during their negotiations with Disney Transportation. There is nothing that ferrets out disparities like an owner with a financial interest in an investment. As I previously stated, I am willing to pay a fair price for my vacation, but I am not willing to subsidize someone else's. If that someone else is a patron of Grand Floridian and a rider of a bus under Disney Resorts contract, then I say let them pay their own way.
Whatever the outcome of this inquiry, I still respect PKS44's willingness to research the issue and insist on an answer to the question. Regardless of the outcome, we will all benefit from ensuring the right of an owner to respectfully ask a question and be answered.
ATCMickey
