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

[Dean]

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.

I suspect we mostly agree, I feel using it for marketing at the expense of the DVC members as a whole is wrong. DVC should just say no if it was a condition from DCL.

 

[Dean]

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?

I would ignore that part because IMO it was not an integral part of the article itself unless the reader wanted to make it so. It seems to me he's working from the ruling backwards and trying to figure out the reason as he goes but one might want to ask him his motivation if it's important. But the idea that those that don't make the effort don't deserve the benefit is right on target, however you want to identify that group.

The basic gist of the article I believe was that it was inappropriate to use this as a marketing tool and exclude a large portion of the DVC owners and it sounds like you and I both agree on that issue. IMO, there is no reasonable explanation for this method other than marketing which I feel was inappropriate in this scenario. As I stated, using a lottery or similar system is reasonable as long as all have an equal opportunity. Now if they want to work it like they did the special season preference list where you get a leg up this time but are excluded next time, I would look at it more favorably as long as they rotate through the entire membership so that over time everyone gets the same opportunity and are equally excluded at other times.

 

[LIFERBABE]

I suspect we mostly agree, I feel using it for marketing at the expense of the DVC members as a whole is wrong. DVC should just say no if it was a condition from DCL.

I was on MC2006 and I disagree that DCL had anything to do with the decision.

First time Member Cruisers are not necessarily first time DCL cruisers. DVCers by nature, love all things Disney and have already realized their desire to frequent all things Disney, including cruising.

This was evident by the number of Castaway Club (CC) members on the ship. The reception filled all 3 clubs with prior cruisers. My roommate was a CC member but a first time DVC cruiser. There was an older couple on the MC2006 that had cruised over 15 times and DCL is only 10 years old and DVC is only on their 3rd MC. The captains of both ships take great pride in their repeat cruisers and quite frankly, they are not hurting for business. I've cruised DCL twice in a month and attended both CC receptions on the Magic and the Wonder and they are very serious about their repeat business.

There were over 1100 Castaway Club members of 2400 guests on our Sep 06 cruise. 110 cabins were DVC members according to the guide at the DVC reception on the Magic. (they put magnets on DVCers doors)

For the record, we already had our Sep 2006 cruise booked when MC2005 and MC2006 were offered, so the MC was not our catalyst to cruising it just fell before our previously booked cruise.

DVC can do what they like, and I dont agree with the tone of the article, but this is simply the squeaky wheels getting the grease.
Last year JL mentioned doing something about the ability for all to book the MC and making the MS hours more west coast friendly among other things like website improvements. You cant say he is not a man of his word, because he has addressed them all. (For those MC2005 cruisers, remember the gentleman at JL's talk that stood up to complain because he could not get in and then the week of the cruise his waitlist came thru and that was the only reason he was there?)

I was not impressed with this years Member Cruise and booked onboard for Nov 2007. I will return to DCL, but unless they announce some stellar changes to MC 2007, I wont be tying up the phone lines.

I did call DVC (not to complain, but to inquire ) and was told that many called and complained because they could not get in for the cruise. The ship will be split in half. Half first time Member Cruisers that will receive a call from MS and Half open to every one else (which will be a free 4 all).

Here's some extra pixie dust for those wanting to go

 

[jemiaule]

People just aren't getting it.

Sure we get it...and it still pisses some of us off.

As I mentioned in my original post - his articles points are devalued because of his inane tangent about slackers.

These people OBVIOUSLY would have fallen in the "people who weren't interested" category.

OBVIOUSLY not; with exception to those who did not own DVC or did not want to cruise

who couldn't afford a cruise that year - perhaps INTERESTED but did not have the funds

who could not take off from work then. - perhaps INTERESTED but could not swing the time off

who could not pull their kids out of school then. - perhaps INTERESTED but found that they just could not take the kids out of school

who had another vacation planned then. - perhaps INTERESTED but had made prior commitments


OBVIOUSLY you are going to read it one way and OBVIOUSLY some of us are going to read it another.

OBVIOUSLY the only thing most of us can agree on is the lottery system is just a dumb idea.

 

[ohiominnie]

No. I beg to differ. Those people without the points or cash or time or childcare or dress up clothes or whatever may have been interested, but not interested enough to book the cruise.

For us we were interested in the cruise, but not interested enough to book it b/c DVC chose to have is smack dab between two home OSU games. That wasn't going to cut it!! And they went and made SSMC07 during football season too....and to take it would mean missing a home OSU game....not going to cut it for us.

So while we were interested, we weren't interested enough to actually jump through the hoops (call on given date, wait on hold, etc) in order to get the room.

A slight difference, I agree, but I think the author categorized those who had no intention of booking the cruise as "not interested."

 

[jemiaule]

For us we were interested in the cruise, but not interested enough to book it b/c DVC chose to have is smack dab between two home OSU games. That wasn't going to cut it!! And they went and made SSMC07 during football season too....and to take it would mean missing a home OSU game....not going to cut it for us.

But uh, you just now said yourself you were interested. That is the point I was trying to make - you can be interested but there can also be something that trumps that interest like money, availability, conflicting events.....

Really though the point is moot; as I mentioned earlier some of us are going to read it one way, some of us another. Getting granular probably isn't going to change either one of our opinions I gather.

But hey, we both do agree the lottery system stinks - so we got that.

 

[jemiaule]

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.

Yes, I am quoting myself...what can I say.

I decided to go back and read some more of the authors other articles. I enjoyed the ones I lookd at; good reads!

To me that makes it a real bummer the article had the tone it did - it made me not want to read any of his other stuff. Only because of my discussion with OhioMinnie did I decide to go read some and see if all of his articles had this style. I am glad to see they did not.

 

[cdmickey]

All of the previous cruises, whether you got on or didn't, is water under the bridge. I don't agree that because you chose, or couldn't book, or weren't eligible, that on the next cruise you should get preferential treatment. On a whole, I agree with the article. 'Slackers' may have been the wrong word to use, but it got the meaning across just fine.

 

[dumbo71]

I think you just have to look at it correctly. He's using a bit of sarcasim to attract attention about an issue. It is all in god fun with the "slacker" term.

What he IS targeting is DVC and DCL and rightly so. First time cruisers getting an advantage is just plain silly and screams of greed. " Lets get another group of victims.... uh cruisers... that we can use the marketing cruise......... uh, member cruise to push add ons to sell out SSR and spur cruise bookings."

Great blog Mike!!!!!!

edit: I do agree with WebmasterDoc and Sammie to some degree. If the author's INTENT was to be mailicious to first time cruisers then it is plain wrong. I just don't see that as the centerpiece of the article. Slackers were the unfortunate way the author chose to slam DVC and DCL. I don't believe there was any INTENT there.

 

[keishashadow]

I honestly don't think the article is sarcastic in a "mocking" sort of way...more so used in an ironic fashion to make a point of view...humor is subjective I suppose.

 

[curtdennis]

I think you just have to look at it correctly. He's using a bit of sarcasim to attract attention about an issue. It is all in god fun with the "slacker" term.

What he IS targeting is DVC and rightly so. First time cruisers getting an advantage is just plain silly and screams of greed. " Lets get another group of victims.... uh cruisers... that we can use the marketing cruise......... uh, member cruise to push add ons to sell out SSR."

Great blog Mike!!!!!!

Good Morning ,

I'm usually on the SSMC06 meet thread and rarely venture off (narrow, I know but I have a hard enough time keeping up there then to be a anything more.)

SSMC06 was my first (and last) Marketing Cruise. It was our fourth cuise on the Wonder and we booked our FIRST cruise on the Magic. (contingent with meeting up with other members of the SSMC06 thread. The friendships we made on MM06 is was made that cruise for us) DVC is 0-2 for member events in my opinion, we also did Member Homecoming, and I will NOT pay premium prices to have something shoved down my throat ever again. My DW and I are in the market to add but after the display of the DVC staff put on the MC I would have first jumped overboard then to add on then.

Mike hit some points on the head - I suspect his sarcasm hit a little too close to home for some -- NOT ALL -- but some. The man has 8-10 years of college and a sheepskin or two on the wall so I belive him to be knowledgeable and thought this article through. The reason I quote this fellow DisSer is because I would say Dumbo71 has so far been the closest to verbalize my opinion of this whole fiasco.

Anyway, another 2 cents for the pot.

 

[jemiaule]

......

Ok, maybe it is just better to delete my reply.

 

[DaveH]

The article made some good points and I agree with most. The tone of the article come across as mean and crude. It is easy to loose the points he wanted to make. BTW I am a slacker because we chose not to cruise before and try this time. He meant most of the 100K plus members who did not go before. The sheepskins do not excuse being rude and mean.

 

[CarolA]

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.

So let me get this right.

I called in right on time last year and got in the phone que.... I then spent over TWO hours in the queue hearing the entire Disney phone music and numerous messages that I would be served while folks who called AFTER me were helped and got their cabins.


So I am now one "those who weren't organized enough to get the job done when it needed to be done." and a slacker?????

WHAT DID I DO WRONG??? What "organization" skill did I miss???

Yes, the new system may not be fair but this theory about the old system being PERFECT has a few flaws!

 

[CarolMN]

I honestly don't think the article is sarcastic in a "mocking" sort of way...more so used in an ironic fashion to make a point of view...humor is subjective I suppose.

It must be - I am getting a kick out the fact that this thread even exists.

IIRC, the announcement of the last 2 Member Cruises generated mutiple posts of how the points were too high, and it was such an awful deal ,and how dare DVC "gouge" members like that.

Now it seems that members are up in arms at the possbility of not getting a reservation - not one mention of the cost!

 

[CarolA]

It must be - I am getting a kick out the fact that this thread even exists.

IIRC, the announcement of the last 2 Member Cruises generated mutiple posts of how the points were too high, and it was such an awful deal ,and how dare DVC "gouge" members like that.

Now it seems that members are up in arms at the possbility of not getting a reservation - not one mention of the cost!

How true. It's the DVC boards. Generally these boards can be counted on to make anything a crisis.. (Just wait until VAKL releases costs and point charts and then when it opens! Plus all those NEW members trying to get on the cruise GASP!)_

 

[Sammie]

One can be extremely educated and still be insulting. The problem with the article is he lumped everyone that did not get on the cruise, such as Carol into one category, slackers. That is incorrect and rude. Then he blamed them for the new changes, again wrong.

Sure some did not get on the ball and get it booked and might have regretted it, but I am sure even more tried to get on the cruise and many reasons other than slacking, prevented that.

Because of all those other reasons and DVC's own agenda those that have not cruised before will get first dips.

 

[rie'smom]

I'm a newbie but what if we don't like to cruise-are we slackers? I really want to meet other DVC members when I vacation or if our area(S E Louisiana) decides to have a member meet but I have very little desire to go on a cruise(except Alaska or the Mediterranean).

 

[chipscinderelly]

It's interesting how some frequent posters who use sarcasim and "humor" in their posts here on the DIS failed to see any of that in the article.


Overall I really liked the article and feel it was right on. An open lottery would be fair, one for just new cruisers is not fair. I guess mom was right - "life isn't always fair".

Hope someone has a great time on the cruise - we're spending the same amount of money on a 7 day in 2008 instead.

 

[Groucho]

That article sounds like sour grapes (not to mention elitism) from a past cruiser to me.

I would suspect that DVC is, as DVC membership continues to grow but room on the member cruises stays the same, to give members (like Carol) who wanted to get on the cruise but weren't able to a better chance. (Not to mention that not every DVC member is a slavish reader of Dis or other internet sites and might not realize that you have to call first thing in the morning to even have a chance!)

I don't buy that it's marketing as there's still the same number of people cruising and I'd guess that repeat cruisers are as likely (or more) to buy into any specific promotion as first-time cruisers.

And I certainly don't think that it's part of a slippery slope where we'll see E-ticket rides get a regular line, a fastpass line, and a "first time riders" line, or be denied a specific accomodation because we've been there before.