DVC Shares the love with slackers -- 2007 Member Cruise Booking Article

[cgcw]

New Mousematters is up and has some interesting thoughts I thought I would share with those over here:

http://www.wdwinfo.com/MouseMatters/mousematters19.htm#hm-mousematters

 

[cobbler]

I do say I have to disagree with the article. While part of it may be because of "slacker", there are people - like myself - that are first time cruisers because we are brand new members.

I do understand the hostility and the put off feeling most have. But I hope everyone doesn't think it is because first time cruisers were lazy. I would be a first time member cruiser and the reason is because I am new to the DVC "family". Not because I am lazy and didn't feel like waiting on hold.

 

[ohiominnie]

Well, of course not. You couldn't be lumped into the "slacker" term, but with the old system you'd have as much chance to cruise as anyone else. I don't believe the Mouse Matters guy was slamming NEW DVC members. The point was the last 3 Member Cruises were open to EVERYONE EQUALLY. Why now preferential treatment for first time cruisers??

In your situation you didn't have any chance to sail on a member cruise b/c you weren't a member, not b/c you didn't jump through the hoops (calling, waiting on hold, etc)

 

[WDWLVR]

I really like and respect Mike, but I too would disagree with the term slackers relating to first time DVC cruisers. After all in most cases it isn't their fault that they didn't get on past DVC cruises. Maybe the timing just didn't work for them on the past ones, or as stated maybe they weren't members then.

I still find fault with the system, but I find fault with DVC not with the DVC members who have never cruised.

Also while I don't care for the new system it might have helped if DVC had communicated better what the plan was. Are they booking 90% of the ship the first day, 20% or somewhere in between. Those answers could have helped those of us who have cruised before and want to again get a better feel for what our chances are.

 

[ohiominnie]

Read the article carefully. He doesn't call ALL first time cruisers "slackers"....just those who didn't organize themselves enough to get on the other member cruises.

"First time cruisers, the ones eligible for this random drawing, may call themselves victims, but they're not. They either didn't read the flyer or weren't interested or weren't organized enough to get the job done when it needed doing. I suspect the majority fall into the latter category. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call them the slackers."

 

[WDWLVR]

Read the article carefully. He doesn't call ALL first time cruisers "slackers"....just those who didn't organize themselves enough to get on the other member cruises.

Point taken. Based on the other cruises where we've had a good size number on new cruisers on each one I would say that most who wanted to get on did. Again I see the "fault" with this business decision to be DVC's and not the DVC members. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say maybe they have heard from others who couldn't get in. I do know that being in chat on booking day for both the 2005 and 2006 cruises that everyone who was in chat and wanted to get on those two sailings did. Perhaps DVC doesn't need a special booking lottery, but instead needs better information out about how and when to book.

 

[ohiominnie]

Point taken. Based on the other cruises where we've had a good size number on new cruisers on each one I would say that most who wanted to get on did. Again I see the "fault" with this business decision to be DVC's and not the DVC members. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say maybe they have heard from others who couldn't get in. I do know that being in chat on booking day for both the 2005 and 2006 cruises that everyone who was in chat and wanted to get on those two sailings did. Perhaps DVC doesn't need a special booking lottery, but instead needs better information out about how and when to book.

and then there was us. Who decided in the beginning not to go on SSMC06 and did not book it on booking day. Then decided in June of 2006 to get on the waitlist. And I believe it was August sometime when the waitlist DID come through but by then we had decided not to go on it again. So there was space.....eventually.

 

[kathleena]

"First time cruisers, the ones eligible for this random drawing, may call themselves victims, but they're not. They either didn't read the flyer or weren't interested or weren't organized enough to get the job done when it needed doing. I suspect the majority fall into the latter category. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call them the slackers. So now the question becomes this: Why is DVC rewarding slackers?"

No, he is calling all of them slackers.

This is just a pitiful article, full of bitterness and sarcasm.

There are more important things in life.

 

[crzy4dals]

Seeing that this year I was a first time cruiser, I agree with Mike's article.

I woke up that fateful December 3rd and had my information all in front of me and phones (2) ready to dial. And that I did. I dialed and dialed and dialed - until the system answered ( at which point I jumped up and down) I made my way through the options and waited.... had some voice overs and some silence..... a few more times and the A LIVE PERSON!!!!!! I want to say in all it took a little over an hour - I did not get my first choice (the secret port hole room - what aren't there only 10) but I got a reservation on THE CRUISE.

My family enjoyed the cruise, it really sold us on DCL. Was that DVC's intent? I am quite sure they wanted me to BUY MORE POINTS - They made that point clear by constantly SELLING DVC. There was the TALK with JIM LEWIS and ON THE NOSE, that never discussed where DVC is going just what they have done and BUY SSR.

Well, we are interested in an add-on, just not at SSR - we plan to add on at HH. I put a deposit down on a 7 day cruise for the family. A cruise that would have been a great down payment for an add on. Guess I will save the add on for another day.

OH SWELL...... we will be cruising in the future just not a DVC cruise.

just my 2 cents. thanks for the article Mike.

 

[CarolA]

Well, of course not. You couldn't be lumped into the "slacker" term, but with the old system you'd have as much chance to cruise as anyone else. I don't believe the Mouse Matters guy was slamming NEW DVC members. The point was the last 3 Member Cruises were open to EVERYONE EQUALLY. Why now preferential treatment for first time cruisers??

In your situation you didn't have any chance to sail on a member cruise b/c you weren't a member, not b/c you didn't jump through the hoops (calling, waiting on hold, etc)

NO IT WAS NOT!

I am sorry, but with the old system 90% of it depended on your luck with the phone system. So everyone has NEVER had an equal chance. Since we probably don't want to PAY for a new phone system for a once a year issue that problem isn't going to be fixed. (At least I don't want to PAY for a phone system for a once a year issue and I was one who got stuck in the broken queue last year. I spent well over two hours listening to canned Disney music when dailing in just after the phone lines opened. When I came home and read the DIS I realized others dialing in AFTER me had already been helped. hung up, called back and waited another 15 minutes and got a room which I later cancelled)

This system may not be perfect, but to pretend the old one was perfect is just as wrong.

 

[keishashadow]

Wish I could but, I can't...afford the member cruise.

That said, while DVC insists they're just leveling the playing field; what's wrong with rewarding fervent Disney groupies who are "in the know"? Especially those who both visit their home resorts & take an additional cruise/trip back to the world...unless they feel they've got a captive audience.

If the cruises are so incredibly popular why not charter more than 1/year to accommodate more cruisers, new & repeat instead of cutting out their core audience, i.e. those that made the 1st few cruises such a resounding success.

Read the article earlier on TA sponsors site, think it's witty and succinct.

 

[jemiaule]

"First time cruisers, the ones eligible for this random drawing, may call themselves victims, but they're not. They either didn't read the flyer or weren't interested or weren't organized enough to get the job done when it needed doing. I suspect the majority fall into the latter category. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call them the slackers."

First time cruisers are also:

People didn't own DVC.
People who couldn't afford a cruise that year.
People who could not take off from work then.
People who could not pull their kids out of school then.
People who had another vacation planned then.
People who, at the time, did not want to cruise.

By broadly labeling first time cruisers as slackers the author comes off as having a severe case of sour grapes because he chose to give those people a derogatory label. His good points about how the system is flawed get completely lost or forgotten due to his ranting verbal diarrhea about "slackers".

Pity, he is probably going to irritate a lot of people by his bitter diatribe. I know the tone of the article left me with a bad taste in my mouth and little desire to read anything else he has written.

 

[Dean]

Ignoring the slacker issue, I'd say the article is on target. It is unfair to single out a group of people to give access to and especially those that are not long time devotee's. It reeks of marketing and not a program to benefit the DVC members themselves. And while DCL may desire to stimulate more people to become cruisers over time, it is inappropriate for DVC to participate in such a divisive marketing ploy at the expense of a significant portion of their members. Were it to be a lottery open to all members, that would be very appropriate.

 

[RobDoc]

Ignoring the slacker issue, I'd say the article is on target.

Why ignore the Slacker issue- it's the title of the biased hack job and the author even deemed it important enough to define the concept later in the piece itself. No reason to ignore the title at all - it was used as the "centerpiece" for the entire thing. The description of any DVC members as "Slackers" is offensive, IMO. Inexperienced, unlucky, unknowledgeable - possibly ... SLACKERS - not at all.

I agree that the lottery could have been open to all members, just like the Special Seasons Lottery of years past, but this author chose to belittle the vast majority of DVC members instead of directing his venom at DVC itself. Blaming the members who have not been able to cruise for the action is just wrong and self-centered. Those members did not make the policy change- the change was made by DVC in response to a perception - real or imagined - that the membership overall will benefit. DVC has made many changes over the years - pool slides, transfers, banking, reallocated point charts, etc. - presumably for the same reason. The membership has not participated in any of these changes either, but in each case has learned to utilize the changes for their benefit. Perhaps this policy is being used as a precursor to a full lottery for future similar cruises based on it's success this year.

Perhaps a little actual research was in order to try to discover the reasons for the change- how many complaints were received by DVC about those left out of the cruise? How many cabins are actually being held for those in the lottery ... and how many members will actually be in the lottery?

What is the true reason for the author's biased indignation? Is he speaking for DVC members as a whole or for some more selfish reason?

 

[jemiaule]

...It reeks of marketing and not a program to benefit the DVC members themselves. And while DCL may desire to stimulate more people to become cruisers over time, it is inappropriate for DVC to participate in such a divisive marketing ploy at the expense of a significant portion of their members. Were it to be a lottery open to all members, that would be very appropriate.

Oh, it is purely marketing both for DCL and DVC, they are not mutually exclusive.

DCL - marketing and sales tool to sell more points under the guise of a member event.

DVC - marketing tool to get those who traditionally may not be interested in cruises on the boat in the hopes of converting them to cruise devotees who will purchase more cruises.

I think there is where the first time cruisers "logic" (for extreme lack of a better term) comes into play. DCL most likely would like the number of repeat cruisers to be lower in this situation. The point of the event from their perspective is most likely to gain new customers.


Do I agree with it? Nope. But I can see why they are doing it from a business standpoint.

One would hope the marketing people behind this took into consideration the negative impact of the lottery system. If so then they must assume that the ratio of potential new repeat customers is better than potential lost customers who are angry.

 

[ohiominnie]

"First time cruisers, the ones eligible for this random drawing, may call themselves victims, but they're not. They either didn't read the flyer or weren't interested or weren't organized enough to get the job done when it needed doing. I suspect the majority fall into the latter category. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call them the slackers."

"First time cruisers, the ones eligible for this random drawing, may call themselves victims, but they're not. They either didn't read the flyer or weren't interested or weren't organized enough to get the job done when it needed doing. I suspect the majority fall into the latter category. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call them the slackers."

First time cruisers are also:
People didn't own DVC.
People who couldn't afford a cruise that year.
People who could not take off from work then.
People who could not pull their kids out of school then.
People who had another vacation planned then.
People who, at the time, did not want to cruise.



By broadly labeling first time cruisers as slackers the author comes off as having a severe case of sour grapes because he chose to give those people a derogatory label. His good points about how the system is flawed get completely lost or forgotten due to his ranting verbal diarrhea about "slackers".

Pity, he is probably going to irritate a lot of people by his bitter diatribe. I know the tone of the article left me with a bad taste in my mouth and little desire to read anything else he has written.

People just aren't getting it. He said that the first time cruisers eligible for this new program fall into 3 groups....those who didn't read the flyer, THOSE WHO WEREN'T INTERESTED, and those who weren't organized enough to get the job done when it needed to be done. He then goes on to label the last group (the ones who weren't organized enough to get the job done when it needed to be done) as slackers. He did NOT label those who
""didn't own DVC.
who couldn't afford a cruise that year.
who could not take off from work then.
who could not pull their kids out of school then.
who had another vacation planned then.
who, at the time, did not want to cruise"
as slackers. These people OBVIOUSLY would have fallen in the "people who weren't interested" category.

The tone of the article left a bad taste in your mouth, but DVC left a bad taste in mine.

 

[Sammie]

Have to agree with Doc, as usual.

Why, because Doc and I, and some others believe if you are going to have an opinion, it should be based at least somewhat on facts and less about irrational emotionalism.

It's very possible that DCL made this stipulation and that it was not even made by DVC. They might be the ones interested in targeting a new segment of cruisers.

But gee I guess thinking about why something happens is too hard and just lumping everyone into the pathetic category of "slackers is just easier to do.

I am sure many did try to book the cruise and were not successful, I seriously doubt it it had anything to do with their lack of motivation.

How many people who are upset about this have contacted DVC and asked Why and what response did you get?

 

[WDWLVR]

How many people who are upset about this have contacted DVC and asked Why and what response did you get?

I contacted DVC through e-mail on their website the day it was announced (which I believe was last Thursday). I got an automated response thanking me for my e-mail and stating that I would hear from someone within 2 days. I haven't heard a thing since.

 

[Sammie]

I contacted DVC through e-mail on their website the day it was announced (which I believe was last Thursday). I got an automated response thanking me for my e-mail and stating that I would hear from someone within 2 days. I haven't heard a thing since.

Well I am glad you tried at least, so many just complain and never try to get an answer. I would suggest a phone call to them, if you don't hear anything soon.

 

[WDWLVR]

Well I am glad you tried at least, so many just complain and never try to get an answer. I would suggest a phone call to them, if you don't hear anything soon.

I might do that but also might not. I did write DVC a very long (3 page) letter when we got home from the 2006 cruise (and mailed it the day before this announcement). I outlined what I enjoyed, what blew me away and what I was disappointed in. I think between that and my e-mail I made my point pretty clear. I was hurt by the inital statement because it did feel like a slap in the face to those of us who have cruise before. I realize that it is a business decision, but I still don't feel it is a good business decision.

I'm hoping to get on the 2007 cruise and if it is meant to be it will be. If not we'll plan some other vacation using our DVC points. While DVC has disappointed me some on this last cruise and with this new booking policy I still think that buying into DVC was one of the best things we ever did.