New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[rinkwide]

...for the record, don't raise my dues just so some people or spec renters can make a bunch of DBD reservations.

Much better to raise them to pay for focus groups, telephone surveys and policy consultants.

 

[Dean]

All certainly had the opportunity to find out about DBD booking. You did, I did and many others did, we did'nt know when we joined but we did find out in some way.
It could have been very simple, all DVC had to do is post the information about the DBD option and then everyone would have known about it and then all would have been on a level playing field. If members chose to use it was their choice, they can no longer blame DVC for not knowing.
While no system will be 100% successful for 100% of members, there will always be one system that is more successful to the majority ( but we're not talking a Democracy here are we) and that is the one that should be used. Unfortunately DVC doesn't seem to care what system is the most successful for the majority of their members only which system uses the least MS resoures, I'm sure you'll agree with that.

I wonder if CM's will be advising members to "walk" their reservations, it is within the rules just as DBD booking was.

Had DVC posted it on the website and put it in the literature, it would have been discoverable for everyone, but they didn't and it wasn't. Realize that this is something that's going on for MANY years but it took years for many to learn about it even if they were members from early on. As for success, we really don't know the info as DVC doesn't release these statistics and I'd venture they don't track unsuccessful reservation attempts. I'm doubting that walking will be encouraged by MS or the guides, I'd bet they have instructions not to do so. However, with the internet being a much more prominent item than years ago, that may not be enough of a deterrent and it's likely that walking will spread much faster than did DBD.

That indicates to me that more than a few must have known about it. Or is DVC being disingenuous???

So the argument from some comparing "unfairness" of DBD because not all knew about it to "unfairness" of new policy seems moot. Were DBD not known by enough to have an impact on MS, why would they cite it as a reason for change? Sometimes we don't see the forest for the trees.

DVC has formally listed two items, complaints from members related to DBD bookings and the desire to decrease phone calls. As I said earlier, fairness is an illusion. But to address the specifics of your post, we don't know how many people know about it. Likely most everyone who frequents DIS or any similar site knows or should have but beyond that who knows. I'd venture that it's still likely no more than 50% are even aware but that is strictly a guess. I only address "fairness" because others are hung up on the word. Given that the only way to know was for MS or someone else to tell you, even if only 1% didn't know, it's still not a fair system to that 1% since they had NO real opportunity to know. And exactly the same can be said for walking. Please understand not I'm not arguing that it should be fair in the sense that many are, simply pointing out that in some ways the old system, the new system and the one after that will never be totally "fair" and that fair is a balance of what's fair to the members and what's fair to the system. Most systems are shaded to fairness to the system itself, DVC less than most.

 

[Dean]

more rhetoric.
Maybe it's a language thing.
OK - let's try this a different way

DBD was a strategy for obtaining the dates [plural]that a member wanted.
The policy was that you called according to check-out day for a given night [singular].

No one EVER had the opportunity to obtain a reservation for any given night before anyone else was permitted to. Every owner of a given resort was allowed to call on the same day to obtain a reservation for a given night. NO ONE was ALLOWED to get that date any earlier.
Now, some are able to secure any given date prior to others even being allowed to.
I'm fairly certain that DVC did not intend to lengthen the booking window indefinitely. However, I don't think that adding cumbersome regulations and/or sanctions to correct an ill-conceived policy is the right way to go about it.

1-night reservation for New Years Eve:
​

Before - EVERYONE must call no earlier than February 1st to secure a reservation for this night.
​

Now- SOME with enough points can secure a reservation for this night an indefinite period of time before others are permitted to call.

​

I agree with your statements on the old system. I think were we differ is that I don't believe this is an ill conceived system, in principle at least, and I feel that giving priority to someone staying 7 days is not only OK, but in the best interest of the membership as a whole. Certainly walking is an issue that will almost certainly need to be address and it's likely some aren't going to like the way it's addressed but we'll see what happens. I don't think it has to be cumbersome to prevent walking and I do think it should be a cancelation and rebooking and should have been all along.

Dean knows all that. He doesn't care. He's said many times in this thread that he is perfectly fine with someone else who has a reservation started having priority over someone just starting a reservation in getting a specific night. While WE think it is an obvious issue of fairness, Dean doesn't.

Exactly. Not caring is a little harsh though, but given that we're only talking WHICH member will get a unit at 11 months out I guess it's a moot point.

 

[Bopsmom]

DBD booking: fair/unfair

Was DBD

only the shadow knows.....

Let's get back to the "walking issue". I'm gonna need to know when to start my "marathon" if I ever what to see WDW during the holidays again-after this year that is.
Remember-I have to book BWV at all peak seasons because of school,work, etc.

 

[Dean]

sounds to me like it's all about WIIFM...

To a degree I think that's true and have said so.

I just got off the phone with Ezra from DVC Member Satisfaction. He was interested in hearing more about the concerns I outlined in my email regarding this policy.
He shared that he would be passing my email and the ideas expressed in our telephone conversation along to the management team - who are continually evaluating the new procedure. I said it shouldn't take long considering that within a week, the membership had identified its shortcomings. I made certain to tell him repeatedly that adding rules and regulations to "fix" the problems created by this ill-conceived policy would serve to strip the DVC program of the flexibility for which it's known. I explained how DH and I often recommend DVC to others by touting it's flexibility and differences from other timeshares and that if we wanted a tradtional timeshare, we would have purchased Marriott. He chuckled and agreed but seemed uncomfortable.
He also seemed genuinely concerned about the disappointment I expressed in my email about DVC's lack of communication and MS training.

He thanked me for sharing my concerns in writing and expressed how this is important for members to do.

I think everyone (both sides) who have had communication with Member Satisfaction on this issue, at least those that I know about or have posted, has gotten the same response slanted to their take. People keep posting like the individual responses mean anything, they don't. DVC is good at being non committal and nice, telling you what you want to hear. Not that they aren't honest about it, just that they aren't going to take one phone call or even all of them, and make decisions on just that. They will look at all their data as well as the aggregate of the feedback they get. And it's still possible, if not likely, that their decision will be somewhat different than that suggested by the complaints.

 

[waltfan1957]

is it our fault members didnt understand the system, NO

will the spec renters you are afraid of benefit from the new system, YES

its actually that simple

 

[jdg345]

Yes, you would have day 7 held, but the 8-14th would not be held and everyone would be on even playing field. As I said, no plan is full proof, but this does a lot.

Right, but I could cancel the 7th on the 7th, since it's the back end of the reservation. Since it's a day I'm holding, I'm guaranteed to re-acquire it and can then book the extension.

As for Spec Renters, well DBD helped them too. They might be able to work large banks of points....but even these points can't all be tied up walking one spec rental....they want numerous weeks, so it would take a lot more points to do than just merely walking a 160 pt reservation. In order to do it they would have to tie up at least 320 or 480 pts to walk that one week. With the current system (and even DBD) they could get three weeks with those points during that peak time.

DBD was significantly more inconvenient for spec renters. If/when they got a hole in their reservation, that reservation became useless to them. You can't rent a reservation with a move in the middle. They might WL, sure, but their point of capitulation is likely far sooner than most others as they are more inclined to try to pick up something else within their window than cross their fingers.

As I keep saying, this is not a perfect system....but with this simple rule you actually make the reservation process for MOST DVC owners a lot easier and straight forward, even compared to the old system. Plus DVC help their bottom line by decreasing number of calls.

How is the system easier and straight forward? All we've done is add rules to rules to rules? The old system was simple: One phone call based on 11 months of departure date, or DBD based on 11 months of departure date. Everyone was booking rooms they wanted for when they wanted them.

Oh, and as for DVC's bottom line, I don't expect to see any of the savings as that is part of the 12%. Since they obviously don't care enough to communicate to the members/owners what the changes are, I can't say I'm too concerned with whether or not they make a few extra pennies off me. If they were trying to improve the bottom line so as to offer more perks to members, that's one thing. But it's pretty clear that they seem to be moving in the opposite direction -- at least to me.

 

[LisaS]

Right, but I could cancel the 7th on the 7th, since it's the back end of the reservation. Since it's a day I'm holding, I'm guaranteed to re-acquire it and can then book the extension.

How are you holding the 7th? With TisBit's rule, if you call on Jan 7th you can cancel the entire reservation (Dec 1-7) or extend it. But you cannot cancel nights 1-6 and hold night 7. What am I missing?

 

[TisBit]

How are you holding the 7th? With TisBit's rule, if you call on Jan 7th you can cancel the entire reservation (Dec 1-7) or extend it. But you cannot cancel nights 1-6 and hold night 7. What am I missing?

Your correct Lisa, jdg345 is thinking you can cancel on the last day of the reservation....but thats not true, you can't cancel until after checkout, which would be the 8th, the day after the reservation....otherwise it would defeat the purpose.

 

[TisBit]

Like I said earlier, I'm not convinced that all of the spec renters are large point holders.

I would agree with this. I think MOST spec renters are smaller point holders that are looking to rent that years points and would rather have reservation in hand for a hard to get time.

Commercial Renters on the other hand, I am sure that they do some spec renting because they know they will be able to turn those reservations around....but for the most part they would be dealing with so many renters that I am sure they keep large amounts of points available to custom rent for their clients throughout the year, not just peak periods.

 

[CarolMN]

......DVC has formally listed two items, complaints from members related to DBD bookings and the desire to decrease phone calls. ......

If true, I don't think DVC accurately understood the complaints. IMHO it's all about busy phones - Members complain about busy phones and DVC can't staff to eliminate them without spending beyond the 12%. (Not saying they should).

Why would a lot of members complain about DBD bookings unless they called at the 11 month window and were shut out? There are only a few situations where that would occur. If you get what you want, then there's no reason to complain unless you are upset about the amount of time on hold or the difficulty in getting through.

Having run more than one large call center in my past, I know there are ways to reduce phone calls without negatively impacting customers. Most involve education, training, & accountability of those who staff the centers, and clear, accurate and timely information to customers.

Someone in DVC jumped to a quick fix without much (if any) consideration for the impact. Doubt they even spent any time defining the problem before implementing a solution. (Without additional rules/restrictions, the current "Fix" is unlikely to significantly reduce the number of calls and due to the issues with waitlists, it may even increase the time it takes a CM to handle a call).

In my experience, these types of quick fix decisions are usually made by upper level managers who never spend more than 5 or 10 minutes in call center operations or talk to those who run them. I could tell many good stories about decisions like that, LOL.

 

[Chuck S]

If true, I don't think DVC accurately understood the complaints. IMHO it's all about busy phones - Members complain about busy phones and DVC can't staff to eliminate them without spending beyond the 12%. (Not saying they should).

I think you are on target with DVC not understanding the complaints. I sent an email last year, as I was calling to book early December. I repeatedly dialed the 407 number, as I have free long distance, and was trying to save DVC some phone charges, which ultimately is paid for by dues.

However, I did not get a busy signal or anything, the line would just go dead, and not roll into the phone queue to be answered by the next available CM. When I wrote I told them that the 407 number wasn't going into the queue, and after calling for several hours, I dialed the 800 number and it was answered within minutes.

The reply I got back was about increased call volume to book the Holiday reservations. They had not addressed the issue of the 407 number going dead at all, just that they were looking at ways to improve booking, I guess this new policy is the result.

 

[Dean]

If true, I don't think DVC accurately understood the complaints. IMHO it's all about busy phones - Members complain about busy phones and DVC can't staff to eliminate them without spending beyond the 12%. (Not saying they should).

But they can manipulate the actual dues to generate any $ they want by simply raising the fees. The max on the main fee itself is 15% per year, that's quite a lot of latitude to increase your dues and mine. Here are three quotes from the member website that applies. There have also been quite a few posts related to this matter and verbal communications with DVC.

In response to ongoing Member feedback regarding our reservation processes

In addition to providing greater Member convenience, the simplification of the reservation process also provides the benefit of reduced call volume to Member Services, thereby shortening Members' wait times and making more efficient use of Member Services resources, which are supported by Members' Annual Dues.

Since the introduction of this new procedure, many Members have expressed excitement about the new policy and the greater convenience and time savings it provides. However, in the past week, some of you have contacted Member Services asking for additional clarification on how the new reservation policy works, the changes to the waitlist process, and Disney Vacation Club's plans to monitor Member activity.

Why would a lot of members complain about DBD bookings unless they called at the 11 month window and were shut out? There are only a few situations where that would occur. If you get what you want, then there's no reason to complain unless you are upset about the amount of time on hold or the difficulty in getting through.

I can't speak for DVC but I can imagine the complaints were from people who called DBD but found it frustrating and experienced longer wait times and even more so from those that did so and didn't get what they wanted. We're seen reports of very long waits on the boards over the past 2-3 years esp. Also those that called at 11 months from their checkout and found nothing would likely complain.

Having run more than one large call center in my past, I know there are ways to reduce phone calls without negatively impacting customers. Most involve education, training, & accountability of those who staff the centers, and clear, accurate and timely information to customers.

Certainly but assuming a large volume of the calls early in the AM were for DBD reservations and that while technically within the rules, was never intended as an approach, it seems that stopping or reducing this process would be the most effective way.

Someone in DVC jumped to a quick fix without much (if any) consideration for the impact. Doubt they even spent any time defining the problem before implementing a solution. (Without additional rules/restrictions, the current "Fix" is unlikely to significantly reduce the number of calls and due to the issues with waitlists, it may even increase the time it takes a CM to handle a call).

In my experience, these types of quick fix decisions are usually made by upper level managers who never spend more than 5 or 10 minutes in call center operations or talk to those who run them. I could tell many good stories about decisions like that, LOL.

Given DVC's track record I can't imagine they simply woke up one day and decided to make such a change. I'll give them more credit than that as to intelligence and process and remember I'm one who generally is somewhat critical of the system there.

I would totally agree that those that complained had little or no idea as to what would happen and may or may not have preferred the old system to the new one. That does not change the validity of their complaints.

 

[jdg345]

You can cancel the entire reservation at any time. You cannot drop days from the beginning of your reservation until on/after 11 months prior to your check-out date. So if on Jan 1 you book Dec 1-7, you can extend that reservation but you cannot drop any nights from the beginning of that reservation until Jan 8 or later. And if you call back on Dec 7 and extend it out to Dec 13th (so you have Dec 1-13 reserved) now you cannot drop any nights from the beginning of the reservation until Jan 14 or later.

Okay, follow you so far.

Nothing. If you booked Dec 1-7 you could call back on Jan 7, cancel the entire reservation and try to book a new reservation for Dec 7-13. You might get lucky or you might lose out to someone who is on the phone with MS at the same time trying to book the same dates. Once you free up Dec 1-7, they are up for grabs and might even fill in someone's WL since you released an entire block of dates.

The CM can hold the room for you, so that it isn't released back into the inventory pool. So by having the 7th pre-booked from the original reservation, I can cancel the entire thing and just drop that last night off -- but ask them to hold the room as I'd like to book that day, plus today + 7 based on the new policy (for a total of 8 days).

But you don't have Day 7 held because you cannot cancel the first 6 nights of your 7-night stay until 11 months prior to your check out day. If you want to do that, you would have to wait one more day. So on Jan 8th you could call back, drop Dec 1-6, keep Dec 7 and try to book Dec 8-14 but there is no guarantee you would get it. Anyone else calling on Jan 8th to book Dec 8+ could grab those nights before you get a chance. To be assured of getting those nights, you have to add on to your Dec 1-7 reservation no later than Jan 7 and at that time it's too early to drop any nights from the start of your reservation.

But I'm not dropping off the start, I'm dropping off the end (or cancelling the whole thing). By having MS hold the night of the 7th for me, and then booking 11+7, I've accomplished the same thing, and really haven't used any more points.

Like I said earlier, I'm not convinced that all of the spec renters are large point holders.

Maybe not, but those that are large point holders are going to be the ones likely tying up several dozen rooms (collectively) over the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and NYE Holidays.

This is one pretty simple rule that seems to take care of a lot issues.

We may just need to agree to disagree here. Chances of you losing that room on a cancel and extend are pretty slim in my experience.

 

[jdg345]

Had DVC posted it on the website and put it in the literature, it would have been discoverable for everyone, but they didn't and it wasn't. Realize that this is something that's going on for MANY years but it took years for many to learn about it even if they were members from early on. As for success, we really don't know the info as DVC doesn't release these statistics and I'd venture they don't track unsuccessful reservation attempts. I'm doubting that walking will be encouraged by MS or the guides, I'd bet they have instructions not to do so. However, with the internet being a much more prominent item than years ago, that may not be enough of a deterrent and it's likely that walking will spread much faster than did DBD.

DVC has formally listed two items, complaints from members related to DBD bookings and the desire to decrease phone calls. As I said earlier, fairness is an illusion. But to address the specifics of your post, we don't know how many people know about it. Likely most everyone who frequents DIS or any similar site knows or should have but beyond that who knows. I'd venture that it's still likely no more than 50% are even aware but that is strictly a guess. I only address "fairness" because others are hung up on the word. Given that the only way to know was for MS or someone else to tell you, even if only 1% didn't know, it's still not a fair system to that 1% since they had NO real opportunity to know. And exactly the same can be said for walking. Please understand not I'm not arguing that it should be fair in the sense that many are, simply pointing out that in some ways the old system, the new system and the one after that will never be totally "fair" and that fair is a balance of what's fair to the members and what's fair to the system. Most systems are shaded to fairness to the system itself, DVC less than most.

FWIW, if we take your guess of no more than 50%, and further guess that 100% of those that knew did not complain about it, then this change was made for the minority of members. Is that fair to the majority?

 

[waltfan1957]

think were we differ is that I don't believe this is an ill conceived system, in principle at least, and I feel that giving priority to someone staying 7 days is not only OK, but in the best interest of the membership as a whole.

now I think you really are confused, as DVC themselves have said the average stay is for 5 days, how would this new policy in your words be in the best interest of the members as a whole

 

[jdg345]

How are you holding the 7th? With TisBit's rule, if you call on Jan 7th you can cancel the entire reservation (Dec 1-7) or extend it. But you cannot cancel nights 1-6 and hold night 7. What am I missing?

Posted above, if I can cancel the whole thing, or just the night off the end and add that one night to a new reservation, then the proposed rule would be for naught.

 

[jdg345]

Your correct Lisa, jdg345 is thinking you can cancel on the last day of the reservation....but thats not true, you can't cancel until after checkout, which would be the 8th, the day after the reservation....otherwise it would defeat the purpose.

To clarify, would I not be able to cancel anything at all? Or just not drop days from the front of the reservation? If I can cancel the whole thing, or days off the back end, then I can continue to walk all year.

 

[jdg345]

I think you are on target with DVC not understanding the complaints. I sent an email last year, as I was calling to book early December. I repeatedly dialed the 407 number, as I have free long distance, and was trying to save DVC some phone charges, which ultimately is paid for by dues.

However, I did not get a busy signal or anything, the line would just go dead, and not roll into the phone queue to be answered by the next available CM. When I wrote I told them that the 407 number wasn't going into the queue, and after calling for several hours, I dialed the 800 number and it was answered within minutes.

The reply I got back was about increased call volume to book the Holiday reservations. They had not addressed the issue of the 407 number going dead at all, just that they were looking at ways to improve booking, I guess this new policy is the result.

Oh Great! So this is your fault!

 

[Dean]

now I think you really are confused, as DVC themselves have said the average stay is for 5 days, how would this new policy in your words be in the best interest of the members as a whole

I'm not sure DVC has said the average stay is 5 days, I know they said that 92% stayed 7 days or less. Part of the reason I think it's in the best interest is the ability to call and get your reservation on 1 call, that it should control costs and that it should make getting through to MS easier in the long run. Obviously some want to disagree on these specific aspects but those are most of the reasons I think it is in the best interest of the members are a whole. Besides, as I've said, I think it's in the systems and the members best interest to encourage full week stays which I believe this policy does.

FWIW, if we take your guess of no more than 50%, and further guess that 100% of those that knew did not complain about it, then this change was made for the minority of members. Is that fair to the majority?

Fair enough, is that what you want, a system where majority rules and no more. I expect better than that but in addition there are multiple masters here (DVC and the members as the main players). Personally I expect more of DVC than just to cater to a thin majority and I think they've done far better over the years. Truth is we don't know what the majority would say if there were a vote, I have my suspicions and I'm sure most others do as well.