My most shockingly, un-Disney moment - Courtesy of the DVC

[keishashadow]

Being too passive and afraid to ruffle a few feathers cannot be attributed to JL, IMO. I understand that in some members eyes the VERY soft sell is a badge of honor and to a degree, a major issue that some see as setting DVC apart from other timeshares though I don't. The problem is that that kids glove approach has had a MAJOR negative to the system over the years. I agree they need to find a happy medium but they've NEVER been even close to that happy medium at any point in history, IMO. As I've said before, one can be far more persuasive and sales oriented and still be professional. Marriott does it far better than DVC with the balance between sales and professionalism, IMO. I realize that a more firm approach may rub some the wrong way however I don't think that's relevant to the situation other than to the point it causes more lost sales than sales gained.

.

i was just tongue in cheeck blaming 'the devil' i.e. how many portray him here

I've talked to many people, including those in the industry, who do expect disney to approach timeshare sales in disney/kid glove fashion, the disney difference, etc. Many I know have only considered attending a DVC presentation because they knew they wouldn't be beat over the head (for lack of a better term).

I'd love to know DVC's presentation closing percentages! IMO majority of prospects that attend are actually more interested in purchasing than those who line up for non-DVC TS offers (sole objective to obtain free tix/cheap accommodation packages in return for enduring 90 minutes of boiler-room tactics).

 

[*Meagan*]

Sorry this happened to you!

SSR has been our "HOME" since 2005 and we love it! Staying at multiple other resorts.. we like a lot of them. But SSR has another place in our hearts.. we really enjoy the property and being so close to DTD. So many people do not enojy SSR but Im not sure why. Hope this didnt send you packing in the other direction!

 

[JenSop]

To the OP - Welcome Home! Don't let this one bad experience ruin things for you! You're going to love being a member!

I also wanted to share our experiences with our guide, just to give another example of really good experiences.

We took our first tour in 2006, and I totally went in on the defensive - the way I do when we go car shopping. (I'm a small woman, and people will totally walk all over you if you don't put on your "tough face" in certain situations.)

But our guide was nothing but nice and polite and patient. NEVER did we feel pressured. Never were we talked down to. We didn't buy at that point, but contacted her a year later to buy in. She was very nice and thanked us for remembering her.

She called us earlier this year just to see how we were enjoying DVC so far and we told her we love it! I said we might want to do an add-on in early 2011 and if she thought there'd still be AKV points to buy at that point. She said there should be no problem getting them next year. She never even tried to get us to buy the add on right away.

As long as she's with DVC, we'll gladly go to her for any add ons and would recommend her to any of our friends!

 

[castleri]

And it most likely was that the OP was not a member yet that they put them with a salesperson. I wonder how many people want to view the models without getting the whole sale pitch?

My DH and I did pretty much this in 1997 ( Sept 14 to be exact) We even told the guide we did not want to do a tour as such just ask some questions. She very graciously took us into a model room (Boardwalk was the sales place then) and explained how the points worked and how the whole system worked. She was very clear that if you are looking to book on short notice DVC probably wouldn't be for you. This took about 15-20 minutes total. She gave us the sales literature to look over and we went out on the Boardwalk, had a beer and nachos and went back and told them we needed to get the paperwork done as we had a dinner reservation for the luau and were leaving the next day for home.

I totally agree with those PP who have said the problem here was at the first person the OP spoke with - they should have been given the model by a non salesperson and that would have resulted in a good experience instead of what happened.

 

[babster462]

Our DVC sales person has always been wonderful. We bought 4 years ago on a DVC tour even though she encouraged us to go home, think about it and then call her. We visit WDW 3-4 times a year and we have never visited without getting a phone message from her in our room welcoming us home again and telling us to call her if we need anything while we are there!! We have added on twice through her and it has always been a smooth and easy transaction with the points available immediately. SSR is our home resort and is our favorite resort. We have tried all the resorts and they are all wonderful but each has good points and bad points- it just depends on what you are looking for in a vacation resort. SSR is spacious, beautiful and never has a crowded feel to it. A lot of times we feel like we are the only ones there!! I love that it is within walking distance to DTD because there are nice places to eat there and lots of things to do. I also love the 11 month booking window on the THV. Of course I can be happy at any Disney resort but SSR always feels like home to me!!

 

[mommacat56]

FYI, I'd be writting something to that effect to BOTH Disney AND the Member Satisfaction Team as well as directly to Mr. Lewis!

I absolutely agree that this poor behavior on the part of those two CMs needs to be reported right to the top management of DVC. If my feeble memory serves, Jim Lewis was our very first advisor when our family purchased back in 1991...he was wonderful, knowledgeable, and patient since my DH couldn't quite wrap his head around the idea of timeshare "points" as opposed to fixed weeks. The only property at the time was OKW, but I'm sure he would have never tried to trash OKW when BCV and BWV were open for sales. The type of behavior cited by the OP is totally unprofessional and counter to the image that DVC tries to cultivate. I agree with the poster who stated that the CMs should be fired...ASAP!

My point is that Jim Lewis knows the DVC product and how to treat the people who pay their salaries. A member is a member! Whether we buy from DVC directly or from a resale agent, we all pay the same dues per point and those dues pay, in part, for DVDMC guides/advisors! I'm sure, just as regular real estate agents would, the guides/advisors receive a commission for every sale...with a resale, that commission goes to the resale agent (ie. The Timeshare Store or other secondary market source).

There are very few extra incentives left for DVC to add to entice people to buy directly from them...a cruise (nice, but not everyone loves cruising)...a Disney gift card (again nice, but unless it's worth > $5000, it's not enough considering the difference in price between direct and resale)...up to $10 or so off per point (also nice, but not enough to compete realistically with a resale contract, especially now with the per point cost soon increasing to $120!)...free APs (also nice, but not everyone goes frequently enough to maximize use of them before they expire). Now, if they threw ALL of these incentives in to EVERY direct sale, I might consider buying direct, but would not purchase for any single one of them.

The ONLY advantages that I can see would be that your points are immediately available to use (ie. "in the system" for immediate booking) and, depending on the use years available, they might be able to allow you use of this year's (or even last year's) points without paying the dues for the extra points. And yes, if you wait list, you might be able to buy small contracts at the sold-out resorts, but you'll be paying the going rate/point with no discounts.

When my family first purchased, we were given complimentary passes for our whole family to go to the three major parks (there was no Animal Kingdom then) for the first 7 years! Now that's an incentive to buy direct and would definitely make up for some of the difference between retail vs. resale. We added on several times directly from DVC and went 3 times a year during those 7 years! They also used to offer a 10% discount on ALL admission media (not just APs), so after that incentive went away, we still got preferential pricing for our passes...this offset some of the cost. Since then, we've added on ONLY RESALE! We simply can't justify paying the direct premium for very little advantage over resale. JMHO!

To the OP...SSR is a great choice...My family has stayed there and loved it! Don't let a couple of Snow White's evil apples spoil what will turn out to be a great purchase for your future vacations! My family has NEVER regretted purchasing our points and I'm always looking for more...it's called "addonitis" and MANY of us on the DisBoards are hopelessly addicted!

 

[Dean]

I totally agree with those PP who have said the problem here was at the first person the OP spoke with - they should have been given the model by a non salesperson and that would have resulted in a good experience instead of what happened.

Technically, I doubt they can do that for those who are not current owners.

 

[jana]

Being too passive and afraid to ruffle a few feathers cannot be attributed to JL, IMO. I understand that in some members eyes the VERY soft sell is a badge of honor and to a degree, a major issue that some see as setting DVC apart from other timeshares though I don't. The problem is that that kids glove approach has had a MAJOR negative to the system over the years. I agree they need to find a happy medium but they've NEVER been even close to that happy medium at any point in history, IMO. As I've said before, one can be far more persuasive and sales oriented and still be professional. Marriott does it far better than DVC with the balance between sales and professionalism, IMO. I realize that a more firm approach may rub some the wrong way however I don't think that's relevant to the situation other than to the point it causes more lost sales than sales gained.

IMHO Disney is the ONE place in the world we should be able to rely on not being hard sold anything. I would be interested to know how many people agree with me that hard sell timeshare ( or hard sell anything) has no place in the Magic Kingdom or anywhere else Disney.
I would also disagree that the "soft sell" has been a major negative to DVC. During their "soft sell" period I have been told by Disney CM they had a MUCH higher close rate than both the "market standard" and also what they are currently (not) enjoying.

I know and understand Disney is a business, but IMHO what set them apart and contributed to their unmatched ( even by "professional outfits" like Marriott and Hilton) sales rates was the fact THEY ARE DISNEY and people expect a certain approach and style from Disney. DVC had an unapproachable niche in the timeshare business. I must admit if I was one of the heads of DVC's competition I would be doing everything I could to (using a sporting analogy) take them out of their "home turf" ( where I know I can not compete with them) and bring them onto my preferred ground, that of "all time shares are the same high pressure event" .

How many people toured and bought DVC simply because this is Disney, not a "timeshare company" and they were confident in the Disney brand name and reputation that they would not get the "normal" timeshare brow beating?

I respect your views and opinions a lot Dean, but in this case, I have to disagree. I see no sense in giving up something that makes you unique in the marketplace. IMHO you should leverage that uniqueness for all it is worth and dominate that area that you command.

 

[Dean]

IMHO Disney is the ONE place in the world we should be able to rely on not being hard sold anything. I would be interested to know how many people agree with me that hard sell timeshare ( or hard sell anything) has no place in the Magic Kingdom or anywhere else Disney.
I would also disagree that the "soft sell" has been a major negative to DVC. During their "soft sell" period I have been told by Disney CM they had a MUCH higher close rate than both the "market standard" and also what they are currently (not) enjoying.

I know and understand Disney is a business, but IMHO what set them apart and contributed to their unmatched ( even by "professional outfits" like Marriott and Hilton) sales rates was the fact THEY ARE DISNEY and people expect a certain approach and style from Disney. DVC had an unapproachable niche in the timeshare business. I must admit if I was one of the heads of DVC's competition I would be doing everything I could to (using a sporting analogy) take them out of their "home turf" ( where I know I can not compete with them) and bring them onto my preferred ground, that of "all time shares are the same high pressure event" .

How many people toured and bought DVC simply because this is Disney, not a "timeshare company" and they were confident in the Disney brand name and reputation that they would not get the "normal" timeshare brow beating?

I respect your views and opinions a lot Dean, but in this case, I have to disagree. I see no sense in giving up something that makes you unique in the marketplace. IMHO you should leverage that uniqueness for all it is worth and dominate that area that you command.

We'll have to disagree. I would submit that the close rate would be higher still with a different approach but IMO there is a balance that DVC has missed on. I would also submit that the approach has cost DVC members at least 3 off site options (CO, CA & NY).

 

[Sammie]

I absolutely agree that this poor behavior on the part of those two CMs needs to be reported right to the top management of DVC. If my feeble memory serves, Jim Lewis was our very first advisor when our family purchased back in 1991...he was wonderful, knowledgeable, and patient since my DH couldn't quite wrap his head around the idea of timeshare "points" as opposed to fixed weeks. The only property at the time was OKW, but I'm sure he would have never tried to trash OKW when BCV and BWV were open for sales. The type of behavior cited by the OP is totally unprofessional and counter to the image that DVC tries to cultivate. I agree with the poster who stated that the CMs should be fired...ASAP!

My point is that Jim Lewis knows the DVC product and how to treat the people who pay their salaries. A member is a member! Whether we buy from DVC directly or from a resale agent, we all pay the same dues per point and those dues pay, in part, for DVDMC guides/advisors! I'm sure, just as regular real estate agents would, the guides/advisors receive a commission for every sale...with a resale, that commission goes to the resale agent (ie. The Timeshare Store or other secondary market source).

There are very few extra incentives left for DVC to add to entice people to buy directly from them...a cruise (nice, but not everyone loves cruising)...a Disney gift card (again nice, but unless it's worth > $5000, it's not enough considering the difference in price between direct and resale)...up to $10 or so off per point (also nice, but not enough to compete realistically with a resale contract, especially now with the per point cost soon increasing to $120!)...free APs (also nice, but not everyone goes frequently enough to maximize use of them before they expire). Now, if they threw ALL of these incentives in to EVERY direct sale, I might consider buying direct, but would not purchase for any single one of them.

The ONLY advantages that I can see would be that your points are immediately available to use (ie. "in the system" for immediate booking) and, depending on the use years available, they might be able to allow you use of this year's (or even last year's) points without paying the dues for the extra points. And yes, if you wait list, you might be able to buy small contracts at the sold-out resorts, but you'll be paying the going rate/point with no discounts.

When my family first purchased, we were given complimentary passes for our whole family to go to the three major parks (there was no Animal Kingdom then) for the first 7 years! Now that's an incentive to buy direct and would definitely make up for some of the difference between retail vs. resale. We added on several times directly from DVC and went 3 times a year during those 7 years! They also used to offer a 10% discount on ALL admission media (not just APs), so after that incentive went away, we still got preferential pricing for our passes...this offset some of the cost. Since then, we've added on ONLY RESALE! We simply can't justify paying the direct premium for very little advantage over resale. JMHO!

To the OP...SSR is a great choice...My family has stayed there and loved it! Don't let a couple of Snow White's evil apples spoil what will turn out to be a great purchase for your future vacations! My family has NEVER regretted purchasing our points and I'm always looking for more...it's called "addonitis" and MANY of us on the DisBoards are hopelessly addicted!

Jim Lewis joined Disney in 1996 so you have him confused with someone else. And while I don't agree with all of his decisions concerning DVC of late, I agree he would not be pleased at all with the conduct of this agent.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

IMHO Disney is the ONE place in the world we should be able to rely on not being hard sold anything. I would be interested to know how many people agree with me that hard sell timeshare ( or hard sell anything) has no place in the Magic Kingdom or anywhere else Disney.
I would also disagree that the "soft sell" has been a major negative to DVC. During their "soft sell" period I have been told by Disney CM they had a MUCH higher close rate than both the "market standard" and also what they are currently (not) enjoying.

I know and understand Disney is a business, but IMHO what set them apart and contributed to their unmatched ( even by "professional outfits" like Marriott and Hilton) sales rates was the fact THEY ARE DISNEY and people expect a certain approach and style from Disney. DVC had an unapproachable niche in the timeshare business. I must admit if I was one of the heads of DVC's competition I would be doing everything I could to (using a sporting analogy) take them out of their "home turf" ( where I know I can not compete with them) and bring them onto my preferred ground, that of "all time shares are the same high pressure event" .

How many people toured and bought DVC simply because this is Disney, not a "timeshare company" and they were confident in the Disney brand name and reputation that they would not get the "normal" timeshare brow beating?

I respect your views and opinions a lot Dean, but in this case, I have to disagree. I see no sense in giving up something that makes you unique in the marketplace. IMHO you should leverage that uniqueness for all it is worth and dominate that area that you command.

I totally agree.

Timeshares in general have an awful reputation that I believe Disney should avoid at all cost. Had I thought Disney was high pressure, I would not have bought. Period.

 

[stefsko]

too shocked for words

 

[jana]

Dean said

I would submit that the close rate would be higher still with a different approach but IMO there is a balance that DVC has missed on

On what grounds? Disney had an approach , and it yielded them a higher close rate than "the marketplace". What guarantees that copying the style of "the marketplace" , a lower producer , would yield higher results. If I'm Michael Phelps why would I accept a challenge of a foot race with a college quality track athlete?

IMHO it defies all business ( and sports) performance logic to suggest that a higher producer, copying the approach of a lower performer would improve their results.

But debatable results aside, I would ask again, how many people want to be "timeshare sharked" while walking through the Magic Kingdom. IMHO if no where else on Earth, I should be safe from that unpleasant aspect of "the real world" while at Disney. Even assuming DVC benefitted from a more aggressive approach, and I'm a long way from convinced on that front, at what cost to the overall Disney brand. IMHO, there is a better way, one that increases sales, reduces costs and doesn't risk damage to the larger Disney image.

I'll grant you they could do with doing a better job of their marketing, but I don't want carnival barkers assaulting me while I'm in line for a photo with Mickey, Minnie or the Princesses.

Disney is all about illusion, magic and escaping reality. Hard sell has no place there, IMHO. Disney has long believed in creating a buying environment so people want to buy the things on offer, not brow beating them so they have a bad taste in their mouth when they get home. DVC plays a dangerous game if they dispense with the illusion, Magic and essence of Disney.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

Dean said On what grounds? Disney had an approach , and it yielded them a higher close rate than "the marketplace". What guarantees that copying the style of "the marketplace" , a lower producer , would yield higher results. If I'm Michael Phelps why would I accept a challenge of a foot race with a college quality track athlete?

IMHO it defies all business ( and sports) performance logic to suggest that a higher producer, copying the approach of a lower performer would improve their results.

But debatable results aside, I would ask again, how many people want to be "timeshare sharked" while walking through the Magic Kingdom. IMHO if no where else on Earth, I should be safe from that unpleasant aspect of "the real world" while at Disney. Even assuming DVC benefitted from a more aggressive approach, and I'm a long way from convinced on that front, at what cost to the overall Disney brand. IMHO, there is a better way, one that increases sales, reduces costs and doesn't risk damage to the larger Disney image.

I'll grant you they could do with doing a better job of their marketing, but I don't want carnival barkers assaulting me while I'm in line for a photo with Mickey, Minnie or the Princesses.

Disney is all about illusion, magic and escaping reality. Hard sell has no place there, IMHO. Disney has long believed in creating a buying environment so people want to buy the things on offer, not brow beating them so they have a bad taste in their mouth when they get home. DVC plays a dangerous game if they dispense with the illusion, Magic and essence of Disney.

In 1994, Dh and I took our 2nd trip to WDW, and stayed on property for the 1st time. However, we spent our 1st night in at the Comfort Inn - LBV and also made plans to attend Medievel Times dinner show.

Well...we were bombarded by Timeshare sales pitches at the Comfort Inn, and then later in the week Medievel Times continually hit us up for expensive photos and souvenirs like cheap swords and such. We were so disgusted. DH and I both commented that we couldn't believe that we left property to go do something like that. Blech!!

Over the years, we've seen this mindset creep into Disney. For instance, on our honeymoon in 1992...very few if any rides emptied out into a gift shop!!!

Disney is attractive to us because it repackages ugly commercialism. (Note: I didn't say it wasn't there.) We considered and bought DVC partly because it wasn't the ugly timeshare experience.

 

[Dean]

Dean said On what grounds? Disney had an approach , and it yielded them a higher close rate than "the marketplace". What guarantees that copying the style of "the marketplace" , a lower producer , would yield higher results. If I'm Michael Phelps why would I accept a challenge of a foot race with a college quality track athlete?

IMHO it defies all business ( and sports) performance logic to suggest that a higher producer, copying the approach of a lower performer would improve their results.

But debatable results aside, I would ask again, how many people want to be "timeshare sharked" while walking through the Magic Kingdom. IMHO if no where else on Earth, I should be safe from that unpleasant aspect of "the real world" while at Disney. Even assuming DVC benefitted from a more aggressive approach, and I'm a long way from convinced on that front, at what cost to the overall Disney brand. IMHO, there is a better way, one that increases sales, reduces costs and doesn't risk damage to the larger Disney image.

I'll grant you they could do with doing a better job of their marketing, but I don't want carnival barkers assaulting me while I'm in line for a photo with Mickey, Minnie or the Princesses.

Disney is all about illusion, magic and escaping reality. Hard sell has no place there, IMHO. Disney has long believed in creating a buying environment so people want to buy the things on offer, not brow beating them so they have a bad taste in their mouth when they get home. DVC plays a dangerous game if they dispense with the illusion, Magic and essence of Disney.

As I stated previously, it is clear their higher % is due to other factors, NOT their approach. I would add that the % is not really the issue as is the total number of sales though. Some might not buy it they were to alter but overall, more would. I'll again say it's possible to shift their pressure and still maintain professionalism.

 

[Corwin]

I believe they are trying to project a very casual, friendly vs actual sales persona w/the initial contacts who are instructed to be vague as to $ details...

We took a tour this last February. Interestingly, before she took our information to schedule a tour, the initial contact booth representative made a point of telling us that a DVC membership cost somewhere in the ballpark of $18K, and watched our reaction to the figure.

(We ended up buying resale, and it didn't cost that much.)

 

[jana]

As I stated previously, it is clear their higher % is due to other factors, NOT their approach

Clear to whom? and how can we ever know. From anecdotal evidence on these boards , there are literally hundreds of people who said the main reason they toured and purchased Disney is because they didn't get the high pressure. You can guess or suggest that a different approach may have worked as well or better, but that's just your opinion ( and you're entitled to it). The only "true" evidence we have is that since Disney has become more aggressive, it's sales rates have dropped. I'll agree this , probably, has much to do with the economic climate, but if what you suggest were true, their sales rates would have soared. Other than the "shot in the arm" BLT brought (mostly from people who had said FOR YEARS they would buy DVC if it had a monorail resort) the sales rates are stagnant and the sales %ages from tours has plummeted. Same income, from much higher costs, when most businesses are trying to control their costs while maintaining their income.



Dean said

I'll again say it's possible to shift their pressure and still maintain professionalism.

I think where we are not seeing eye to eye is that there is a difference between "The Disney way" ( which is professional IMHO) and "professionalism" in how it pertains to the timeshare industry.

It is indeed possible for DVC to continue to become more aggressive and be "professional" by outside timeshare standards, however it goes against, IMHO, everything that Disney in general and Walt in particular stood for. Disney holds itself ( and it's guests hold it) to a higher standard. The question is does the greater company of Disney lose something (perhaps intangible) if one of it's divisions sells out all that heritage and those traditions for a quick buck? I believe it does, I also believe DVC can be a major contributor to the Disney bottom line AND still remain true to Disney's traditions. IMHO DVC doesn't need to compete with Marriott, Hilton et all , in order to be profitable.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this one Dean, I am first and foremost a Disney fan and you seem more to be a timeshare fan. Perhaps it's the perennial Dreamer Vs the pragmatist argument. If so again I'll say if we can't be a dreamer at Disney, where can we? Disney after all makes hundreds of millions of dollars selling dreams, the harsh light of reality from overly aggressive timeshare hawkers ( and we all have a different "comfort level" for that behavior) may shatter more than just a few condo sales.

I could be wrong, but other than Dean, is there ANYONE who wants aggressive timeshare to be part of their Disney experience? If that's what people want, I'm happy to bow to pressure from the masses, I just don't think it's what true Disney fans expect from their "Disney experience" .

 

[Dean]

Clear to whom? and how can we ever know. From anecdotal evidence on these boards , there are literally hundreds of people who said the main reason they toured and purchased Disney is because they didn't get the high pressure. You can guess or suggest that a different approach may have worked as well or better, but that's just your opinion ( and you're entitled to it). The only "true" evidence we have is that since Disney has become more aggressive, it's sales rates have dropped. I'll agree this , probably, has much to do with the economic climate, but if what you suggest were true, their sales rates would have soared. Other than the "shot in the arm" BLT brought (mostly from people who had said FOR YEARS they would buy DVC if it had a monorail resort) the sales rates are stagnant and the sales %ages from tours has plummeted. Same income, from much higher costs, when most businesses are trying to control their costs while maintaining their income.



Dean said I think where we are not seeing eye to eye is that there is a difference between "The Disney way" ( which is professional IMHO) and "professionalism" in how it pertains to the timeshare industry.

It is indeed possible for DVC to continue to become more aggressive and be "professional" by outside timeshare standards, however it goes against, IMHO, everything that Disney in general and Walt in particular stood for. Disney holds itself ( and it's guests hold it) to a higher standard. The question is does the greater company of Disney lose something (perhaps intangible) if one of it's divisions sells out all that heritage and those traditions for a quick buck? I believe it does, I also believe DVC can be a major contributor to the Disney bottom line AND still remain true to Disney's traditions. IMHO DVC doesn't need to compete with Marriott, Hilton et all , in order to be profitable.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this one Dean, I am first and foremost a Disney fan and you seem more to be a timeshare fan. Perhaps it's the perennial Dreamer Vs the pragmatist argument. If so again I'll say if we can't be a dreamer at Disney, where can we? Disney after all makes hundreds of millions of dollars selling dreams, the harsh light of reality from overly aggressive timeshare hawkers ( and we all have a different "comfort level" for that behavior) may shatter more than just a few condo sales.

I could be wrong, but other than Dean, is there ANYONE who wants aggressive timeshare to be part of their Disney experience? If that's what people want, I'm happy to bow to pressure from the masses, I just don't think it's what true Disney fans expect from their "Disney experience" .

It's clear to the industry that high pressure results in more sales than the reverse. It's clear that HH & VB took about twice as long to sell than projected and at lower prices that projected and in the case of VB, for a scaled down resort. And that those slower sales of VB & HH cost us 3 resort then in the works and an unknown number of possible additional resorts including a then rumored HI resort. We don't really know DVC's close rate and we really don't know that it's higher than other resort systems. However we do know that the park proximity and Disney's name are major draws, that DVC tends to tour mostly virgin prospects who have shown an interest already in the system. IMO it's clear that DVC's success has been in spite of their sales approach, not because of it, YMMV.

As I stated previously, I think Marriott has a much better balance while maintaining as much overall professionalism as DVC on any standard. I would submit that your reasons, as stated, for the status quo are emotional because one feels right to you and one does not. I would further submit that there is a downside to the current approach and potential benefit to any shift that results in more total sales. I would disagree with the idea that any shift should result in soaring sales as everyone's sales are in the tank at present, DVC's included. And I don't think we've seen enough info to confirm there has been a fundamental shift. My guess is that it's more that DVC has hired some people that have worked in the industry at other systems and they are acting on their own. You can almost guess which system they've worked for based on the reports of their approach. I would also suggest that there are other ways to increase sales other than simply increasing pressure. For example you could be more aggressive in soliciting people to tour, you could offer cheaper stays with a tour requirement and many others.

The HI sales and any changes to the DVC approach should be interesting. I've already predicted that either major changes will have to occur OR the sales there will be pretty dismal.

 

[jana]

I would also suggest that there are other ways to increase sales other than simply increasing pressure. For example you could be more aggressive in soliciting people to tour, you could offer cheaper stays with a tour requirement and many others.

That I definately agree with. I would rather try the other options first and remain "Disney" where ever possible .

It's clear that HH & VB took about twice as long to sell than projected and at lower prices that projected and in the case of VB, for a scaled down resort.

. Was that as a result of poor/over ambitious projecting more than the style of the sales center? IMHO For Vero and HHI Disney was overly ambitious and thought all they needed to do was stamp Disney's name on something and it would walk out the doors.

However we do know that the park proximity and Disney's name are major draws, that DVC tends to tour mostly virgin prospects who have shown an interest already in the system. IMO it's clear that DVC's success has been in spite of their sales approach, not because of it, YMMV

First part I agree with, however many/most of the people that tour and buy Disney have either toured other companies and were turned off by the pressure aspects or are familiar with the concept but avoided the presentation due to concerns with the approach those companies take. People buy DVC because they trust ( an emotion) the Disney name.

I would submit that your reasons, as stated, for the status quo are emotional because one feels right to you and one does not

I agree it's an emotional choice, but emotion is what Disney is all about. People buy luxury/impulse items not on the economics of them, but on how it makes them feel. Disney is in the "business" of emotions, a company that ignores it's core values and those of it's paying customers takes a big risk.

The HI sales and any changes to the DVC approach should be interesting. I've already predicted that either major changes will have to occur OR the sales there will be pretty dismal.

I think the deciding factor for Hawaii is going to be Japanese purchasers,strength of the Japanese currency and the Japanese Economy. Anecdotal evidence says interest on the East coast is limited but I think the west coast is OK and Japan is, so far, pretty busy. IMHO Disney's lower pressure methods may actually work very well with the Japanese. But all those careful plans may get torn up if the Japanese government continues to drain money from their economy and continues to try to weaken the Yen. It's a risky step to have most of your eggs in someone elses basket but that seems what DVC is doing by putting such a big emphasis on Japan.

 

[Dean]

Was that as a result of poor/over ambitious projecting more than the style of the sales center? IMHO For Vero and HHI Disney was overly ambitious and thought all they needed to do was stamp Disney's name on something and it would walk out the doors.

One and the same in my book. My info suggests they projected it using on property info with an adjustment allowing for longer due to it being off site and that both took far longer than expected even then. The difference between the onsite and off site highlight that it's the draw of the park relationship and not the style of the presentation that's results in good/bad sales with DVC at the time and there have been no substantial changes from then to now that I can see. There MAY be hints at changes currently though I suspect it's more rogue guides than a system change. If anything, they sent many of their best people to VB/HH from what I saw at the initial sales onset.

First part I agree with, however many/most of the people that tour and buy Disney have either toured other companies and were turned off by the pressure aspects or are familiar with the concept but avoided the presentation due to concerns with the approach those companies take. People buy DVC because they trust ( an emotion) the Disney name.

I don't believe that's accurate. While there are some who fit the cat you describe it appears that most people who tour DVC have never toured other timeshares and have NO direct exposure to other timeshares though many have preconceived ideas without any factual basis. IF the low pressure approach itself worked well, everyone would be doing it. There is plenty of market research on the subject albeit proprietary and not available to the general public.

I agree it's an emotional choice, but emotion is what Disney is all about. People buy luxury/impulse items not on the economics of them, but on how it makes them feel. Disney is in the "business" of emotions, a company that ignores it's core values and those of it's paying customers takes a big risk.

Buying a timeshare that doesn't make financial and practical sense is crazy. While there is a certain amount of emotion involved, I think most buyers for DVC (and others too) try to look at the specifics. That's not to say they do it well, most don't, such as using rack rates with DVC as a measuring stick for buying in.

I think the deciding factor for Hawaii is going to be Japanese purchasers,strength of the Japanese currency and the Japanese Economy. Anecdotal evidence says interest on the East coast is limited but I think the west coast is OK and Japan is, so far, pretty busy. IMHO Disney's lower pressure methods may actually work very well with the Japanese. But all those careful plans may get torn up if the Japanese government continues to drain money from their economy and continues to try to weaken the Yen. It's a risky step to have most of your eggs in someone elses basket but that seems what DVC is doing by putting such a big emphasis on Japan.

We'll have to disagree because I think the specific approaches and not targeted market will be the major factor in success or failure. DVC has seemed to advertise a little more with HI than others but I don't think that alone will be enough, we'll see. HI in general has already had two major economic downturns related to their dependence on Japanese activity.

To summarize my key points.

• DVC needs to shift to being more aggressive in terms of sales (including sales tours) which they can do and still maintain every bit of professionalism that those who see Disney as some type of utopia think is appropriate.
• There are many ways to become more aggressive with sales than simply a high pressure tour.
• Having lower than possible sales has a real and negative affect on current and future members.