MS factiods from an MS rep

[cogero]

I don't mind being the contrarian here -- I think the MS CM told Cricket exactly what Cricket said they said.



I personally think the waitlist change was a big mistake, and I hope they'll fix it in the unlikely event that they ever bring their computer system into the 20th Century. But that remains to be seen.

Okay I had to laugh at this one because if they brought it to the 20th Century it would still be behind since we are in the 21st Century.

 

[fishermouse]

Okay I had to laugh at this one because if they brought it to the 20th Century it would still be behind since we are in the 21st Century.

nice catch I know I missed it

 

[MrsNick]

 

[manning]

Now that's a computer.

 

[JimMIA]

Okay I had to laugh at this one because if they brought it to the 20th Century it would still be behind since we are in the 21st Century.

My point exactly.

 

[JimC]

I would give the CMs a break. They have a role to play, are given certain tools to use, and told what policies to follow. They don't design the tools or make the policies.

Overall I think they do a darn good job with what they have to work with.

I agree with the earlier comment about their knowing if you call back. The CRM systems some operations use are really quite sophisticated, almost scary in some respects.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

. . .4) They are officially being told to say that the new 7 day reservation policy and waitlist policy are not only doing well, but that members are having a very positive response to them when in fact neither is true and MS reps also do not like the policies in general and hate the wait list with a passion (could be this specific reps opinion only though on that part) . . .

I would suspect tht most of the CMs at MS have no strong reason to believe that members are unhappy with the new booking policies. From the reports on this Board, those booking at the 11 month window appear to have had similar booking success so far under this policy as they had under the old policy. I personally think that level of success will decrease as we get to high demand times, but the MS CMs probably reasonably believe "so far, so good" with the policy change.

Those CMs that have heard that the members are unhappy probably are aware of it on an intellectual basis, but not an emotional basis. There is a big difference from hearing a member say "Thanks for making my reservation but I sure think this new booking policy stinks" and "I am so upset that I could NOT get my reservation at 11 months; this new booking policy stinks!"

As a result, I would think most CMs don't consider that being told members are happy with the change IS a lie.

-- Suzanne

 

[JimMIA]

I would suspect tht most of the CMs at MS have no strong reason to believe that members are unhappy with the new booking policies. From the reports on this Board, those booking at the 11 month window appear to have had similar booking success so far under this policy as they had under the old policy. I personally think that level of success will decrease as we get to high demand times, but the MS CMs probably reasonably believe "so far, so good" with the policy change.

Those CMs that have heard that the members are unhappy probably are aware of it on an intellectual basis, but not an emotional basis. There is a big difference from hearing a member say "Thanks for making my reservation but I sure think this new booking policy stinks" and "I am so upset that I could NOT get my reservation at 11 months; this new booking policy stinks!"

As a result, I would think most CMs don't consider that being told members are happy with the change IS a lie.

-- Suzanne

I think the concerns about the new booking policy are more theoretical than practical at this point. As you say, the system is really too new, and hasn't really been tested yet. Also, if it has an adverse effect, it will probably only hurt a very small group of owners looking for very specific accommodations during peak times.

The new waitlist system is a completely different story. The new automatic waitlist system has been around for a while now, and it has been an unmitigated disaster. People have had base reservations canceled when a waitlist for one night comes through, and all sorts of other problems.

I don't know anyone who thinks the elimination of the "call and check" option for waitlists has gone well. It's become the poster child for "Seamless Disney Implementation." Any CM who thinks the waitlist system is good is living in a fantasy world.

I doubt that DVC managers have gone directly to CM's and told them to LIE. But I have no doubt that they continue to reinforce the company line that all is well...and that CM's are expected to follow the company line.

 

[crisi]

Well, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. People high on the totem pole, generally, find it impossible to admit a mistake even to the detriment of the company.

Usually the only way a fiasco like this gets changed is if the person responsible for it gets displaced and that can take some time.

IME, having worked closely with about 6 Fortune 500 CEOs - they often have a lot more information than we do - the decision they made - given all the information THEY have, was not, in fact, a mistake at all.

In this case, the change could have been made for a lot of reasons that have a higher priority for DVC than the satisfaction of a minority of members it impacts. Its possible costs are rising fast enough that they might hit the cap (or just rising fast enough that they are scared a lot of us are going to go to the resale market when our January dues arrive) - so hard decisions are being made to keep costs under control. It could be that we are going to get web based reservations and these changes are being made in preperation. However, that may not be information they feel they should share outside their offices. As members, we are not entitled to every bit of information DVC is using to make desicions.

I know of one case where the CEO keeps trumpeting "all is well" when it isn't - but saying "all is well" and using a broken system is keeping them from having to take a $200 million writeoff. The system sure ain't great, but scraping it would bring the company to its knees.