Is Member Services not answering general calls today?

[Madame]

Nothing requires them to do so 365 days each year.

You can choose to ignore the conflict of interest here and the fact that DVCMC has a fiduciary obligation to all members, but they still exist.

 

[Sandisw]

You don’t understand the discussion I’m afraid. They can offer whatever promotional activities they want to whatever class of owners. DVCMC has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of ALL members. It’s not even about the secondary market. At no point should DVD (the developers) be using member paid services to promote their product, regardless of owner status.

ETA I’m a grandfathered pre 2016 member. We’ll notice that the Moonlight Magic bookings are done electronically. These cruise booking should be no different as they are DVD promotional tools. I would wager they’re not booked electronically for convenience. Not our convenience by the way.

They do have it and what happened yesterday hasn’t changed that, They are under no obligation, whether you want to agree or not, to provide 365 days of phone support to members.

They can decide to provide it whichever days of the year, and what hours they want, As long as they are providing the service we pay them for, whatever else they take on is up to them.

 

[Madame]

They do have it and what happened yesterday hasn’t changed that, They are under no obligation, whether you want to agree or not, to provide 365 days of phone support to members.

They can decide to provide it whichever days of the year, and what hours they want, As long as they are providing the service we pay them for, whatever else they take on is up to them.

You honestly think a court of law would see it that way? Genuinely curious. You don’t think a court wouldn’t look at the situation and declare a conflict of interest?

 

[Sandisw]

This ignores the conflict of interest that is obvious here, as well as the fiduciary duty of DVCMC.

But it doesn’t because the only thing we are entitled to is that they manage the program. They can use that 12% fee we pay them to run DVCMC to support owners in anyway that they want.

Again, they supported owners yesterday with aspects of the program… so absolutely no conflict of interest.

Whether owners agree or not, they can provide services that apply to everyone or just some, as long as what they are doing is related to the program.

 

[Madame]

But it doesn’t because the only thing we are entitled to is that they manage the program. They can use that 12% fee we pay them to run DVCMC to support owners in anyway that they want.

Again, they supported owners yesterday with aspects of the program… so absolutely no conflict of interest.

Whether owners agree or not, they can provide services that apply to everyone or just some, as long as what they are doing is related to the program.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Have a good afternoon!

 

[Sandisw]

You honestly think a court of law would see it that way? Genuinely curious. You don’t think a court wouldn’t look at the situation and declare a conflict of interest?

Yes, I do because all they need to do is look at what is going on. They are contracted to provide owners support, and they did that.

They are an independent company that we hire. Do you think we can tell an airline who and how they can service?

Like I said, this isn’t about DVD. This is about the aspects of the program and things like trades, special events, and membership cruises are part of the program and as owners, our 12% fee is paid to handle that, regardless of whether or not everyone gets to participate.

But, as mentioned, several times, the money that DVCM gets from breakage and selling OTU points is theirs to spend on what they like, so if it helps , assume those are what funded the salaries of CMs yesterday…

I do agree that it can be frustrating and it would be nice if they could find a better way to handle both without taking the entire department offline.

 

[Akck]

You honestly think a court of law would see it that way? Genuinely curious. You don’t think a court wouldn’t look at the situation and declare a conflict of interest?

No. I think a court would understand that services can’t be provided to 100% of members all the time. As long as you’re able to utilize those services at some point in time, there isn’t a conflict of interest.

 

[dwg]

You don’t understand the discussion I’m afraid. They can offer whatever promotional activities they want to whatever class of owners. DVCMC has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of ALL members. It’s not even about the secondary market. At no point should DVD (the developers) be using member paid services to promote their product, regardless of owner status.

ETA I’m a grandfathered pre 2016 member. We’ll notice that the Moonlight Magic bookings are done electronically. These cruise booking should be no different as they are DVD promotional tools. I would wager they’re not booked electronically for convenience. Not our convenience by the way.

You may be right I that I do not understand the discussion but asking me if an all white card event is ok vs a blue card event does sound like a secondary market issue to me. I just don't see the issue with member services being dedicated to a special event for one day.

I have never booked Moonlight Magic but I can tell you that booking the cruise is very involved and I would guess that DVC is not set up to do that electronically in the way that DCL is. Even when booking a normal cruise through the DVC cruise team they have to put you on hold while they discuss and clear the booking with DCL to confirm your choices and finalize the booking. I was told by member services that the software that is used by all member services to book the member cruise was different than the regular software they use to book DCL cruises in that it let them book the cruise without first contacting DCL. I am sure that DCL would not allow that on a regular basis.

 

[Madame]

You may be right I that I do not understand the discussion but asking me if an all white card event is ok vs a blue card event does sound like a secondary market issue to me. I just don't see the issue with member services being dedicated to a special event for one day.

I have never booked Moonlight Magic but I can tell you that booking the cruise is very involved and I would guess that DVC is not set up to do that electronically in the way that DCL is. Even when booking a normal cruise through the DVC cruise team they have to put you on hold while they discuss and clear the booking with DCL to confirm your choices and finalize the booking. I was told by member services that the software that is used by all member services to book the member cruise was different than the regular software they use to book DCL cruises in that it let them book the cruise without first contacting DCL. I am sure that DCL would not allow that on a regular basis.

That is DVD’s problem, not DVCMC’s problem. We, as members pay DVCMC to run member services. The member cruise is a DVD event. Yesterday DVD co-opted the MS we ALL pay for to book a promotional event. Regardless if you’re blue or white card NONE of us should be giving up service or in any way paying for the developer arm of DVC to sell more timeshare units

 

[Sandisw]

You may be right I that I do not understand the discussion but asking me if an all white card event is ok vs a blue card event does sound like a secondary market issue to me. I just don't see the issue with member services being dedicated to a special event for one day.

I have never booked Moonlight Magic but I can tell you that booking the cruise is very involved and I would guess that DVC is not set up to do that electronically in the way that DCL is. Even when booking a normal cruise through the DVC cruise team they have to put you on hold while they discuss and clear the booking with DCL to confirm your choices and finalize the booking. I was told by member services that the software that is used by all member services to book the member cruise was different than the regular software they use to book DCL cruises in that it let them book the cruise without first contacting DCL. I am sure that DCL would not allow that on a regular basis.

It really has nothing to do specifically with even the cruise itself, but rather the notion that MS should not be allowed to perform any duties for owners that don’t apply to everyone.

But that is not how the contract with DVCMC is set up. We simply pay them to manage the program. They get a straight 12% fee to oversee all aspects of it, and that includes helping owners do things like cruises, trading out, booking APs, etc.

Basically, we agree as owners to give them X dollars a year to run it as they see fit, That means they set up the hours and days they will be open for business to support owners,

And yesterday, MS was open for business for booking the cruises for owners who wanted and were eligible to go.

We are not entitled to oversee their internal budget of operations because we are nothing more than clients…each condo association hires them.

The notion that MS should not be allowed to do anything that applies to some but not all owners is simply not accurate.

If you are an owner who did call yesterday, you were entitled to that support since it’s one of the roles of MS.

As long as they are meeting their obligations to support owners, then they are doing what they are paid to do,

I don’t think anyone can say that shutting down general business a few times a year to help owners book special events…which again, is part of what they are responsible for doing as part of the fee…is failing in meeting responsibility to the membership as a whole.

 

[CarolMN]

DVCMC has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of ALL members.

The duty is to the membership "as a whole" - not every member all of the time.

 

[Madame]

The duty is to the membership "as a whole" - not every member all of the time.

True enough, but it’s unbalanced. Never will there be a day when MS is essentially shut to service only white card members… and yet we pay the same amount to cover management. They couldn’t even be bothered to fix the borrowing glitch which disproportionately affected resale buyers for what, a year? More?

 

[CarolMN]

True enough, but it’s unbalanced. Never will there be a day when MS is essentially shut to service only white card members… and yet we pay the same amount to cover management.

The "argument" essentially boils down to the definition of "fair". It's unlikely that everyone (or even most of us) will agree on that.

My go to definition of "fair" is a place where you take your pig. In Minnesota, it's in August. (This is what I told my union members when they complained something wasn't fair, but was done according to the contract).

 

[Madame]

The "argument" essentially boils down to the definition of "fair". It's unlikely that everyone (or even most of us) will agree on that.

My go to definition of "fair" is a place where you take your pig. In Minnesota, it's in August. (This is what I told my union members when they complained something wasn't fair, but was done according to the contract).

It’s not only about fair. It’s about using members’ money/time/services to the benefit of DVD and only a certain portion of the membership…. So in the end they can make more money selling their product. That’s a misuse of MS IMHO.

 

[DaveNan]

We are at that point that we are not going to come to agreement. Obviously if it bothers me enough, I can always exit the relationship (sell). But while we can use the term we "fair", in interpreting the actions, I look at it from an "in the interest of the owners", DVCMC's fiduciary responsibility. The uncertainty comes in with is this the interest of a very small number of owners or in the interest of most of the owners. DVCMC obviously looks at it from a perspective of in the interest of any of the owners. I see it more in terms of in the interest of the majority of the owners (points or count). While DVCMC is a separate subsidiary if Disney, the executive move between the all subsidiaries regularly. While working for one of the subsidiaries my view is they make decisions in the interest of Disney as a whole, not for the specific subsidiary they are working for at that time. 95% of the time that is good and proper corporate behavior. Where it gets questionable is when they subsidiary has formal agreements that it will work in the interest of another group. For DVCMC, I think they too often continue to make decisions that will benefit Disney, at the expense of the members as a whole.

Remember, during lockoff gate, these are the executives who stated repeatedly that 1BR villas has very high demand, even more than 2BR villas.

 

[Sandisw]

We are at that point that we are not going to come to agreement. Obviously if it bothers me enough, I can always exit the relationship (sell). But while we can use the term we "fair", in interpreting the actions, I look at it from an "in the interest of the owners", DVCMC's fiduciary responsibility. The uncertainty comes in with is this the interest of a very small number of owners or in the interest of most of the owners. DVCMC obviously looks at it from a perspective of in the interest of any of the owners. I see it more in terms of in the interest of the majority of the owners (points or count). While DVCMC is a separate subsidiary if Disney, the executive move between the all subsidiaries regularly. While working for one of the subsidiaries my view is they make decisions in the interest of Disney as a whole, not for the specific subsidiary they are working for at that time. 95% of the time that is good and proper corporate behavior. Where it gets questionable is when they subsidiary has formal agreements that it will work in the interest of another group. For DVCMC, I think they too often continue to make decisions that will benefit Disney, at the expense of the members as a whole.

Remember, during lockoff gate, these are the executives who stated repeatedly that 1BR villas has very high demand, even more than 2BR villas.

Discussions about decisions they make is a fair one and certainly even discussing whether or not DVCMC is the best management company for the program and owners is also fair, especially given how intertwined things are between all of the divisions.

But, in terms of the contract with them. It’s pretty clear.

DVCMC can use the money paid to them from dues and other sources to ” to manage the program”, and DVCMC gets to define the roles and responsibilities of MS.

Right now, MS is responsible in helping owners with using their membership. There is no such requirement that says it can only be used for certain services that owners need help with. regardless if it appears to benefit Disney in some way.


I do get some feel that MS should be restricted from performing any duties for things that aren’t eligible for all, but that is not how the DVCMC management agreement was designed and set up to work.

The contract isn’t set up to allow owners to pay less than their share of the 12% fee.

It was like when I was in a union. I had to pay the same as everyone else even when they did things I didn’t agree with because I was required to pay regardless.

 

[tjkraz]

It’s not only about fair. It’s about using members’ money/time/services to the benefit of DVD and only a certain portion of the membership…. So in the end they can make more money selling their product. That’s a misuse of MS IMHO.

So what's the alternative?

DVC creates two separate phone banks for reservation-related issues vs Membership Extras. The banks are staffed by unique groups of individuals, seemingly in the interest of separating costs & responsibilities. At any time, members will be subject to longer wait times if one queue grows longer than the other. Members will frequently have to be transferred if their call segues from "I need help with a reservation" to "I want to book Wicked Wind Down."

All of that to address a cruise booking surge which manifests itself .3% of the year. And let's not forget that such separation isn't actually required since there's no line-item billing on our dues for Member Services. It's a flat 12% regardless of how DVC spends the money.

I mean, don't we have to consider that at some point the cure is worse than the disease?

 

[Madame]

So what's the alternative?

DVC creates two separate phone banks for reservation-related issues vs Membership Extras. The banks are staffed by unique groups of individuals, seemingly in the interest of separating costs & responsibilities. At any time, members will be subject to longer wait times if one queue grows longer than the other. Members will frequently have to be transferred if their call segues from "I need help with a reservation" to "I want to book Wicked Wind Down."

All of that to address a cruise booking surge which manifests itself .3% of the year. And let's not forget that such separation isn't actually required since there's no line-item billing on our dues for Member Services. It's a flat 12% regardless of how DVC spends the money.

I mean, don't we have to consider that at some point the cure is worse than the disease?

Maybe DVD should fund their own bookings. Why not pay DCL to use their CMs….

A lot of assumptions being presented as fact on this thread RE funding from exchanges paying for at least a full day of CMs (they’re still calling members for payment today) etc with no proof of the cost/funding. Didn’t MsBibbidi just get taken to task not long ago for allegedly presenting supposition as insider knowledge..? A lot of it would be cleared up if DVCMC were transparent, but that’s not going to happen.

This convo reminds me of the lock-off discussions (including sides taken), so I’ll leave it at that.

 

[tjkraz]

Maybe DVD should fund their own bookings.

Some combination of DVC + DVD is funding the entire thing. The fact that we're paying them 12% of our dues is neither here nor there. It's their decision on how to spend (or not spend) that money.

The configuration is open to debate. My point is that making changes to the setup of Member Services carries both positive and negative repercussions. If they segregate calls / staff / job responsibilities for Membership Magic vs other duties, there will be times when members see their wait times and/or convenience level negatively impacted.

 

[Madame]

Some combination of DVC + DVD is funding the entire thing. The fact that we're paying them 12% of our dues is neither here nor there. It's their decision on how to spend (or not spend) that money.

The configuration is open to debate. My point is that making changes to the setup of Member Services carries both positive and negative repercussions. If they segregate calls / staff / job responsibilities for Membership Magic vs other duties, there will be times when members see their wait times and/or convenience level negatively impacted.

Sure thing.