NO MORE free valet parking for DVC members.

[Dean]

No, not 11 months. If I wanted to make a January 1, 2010 reservation, I could call on February 1, 2009. So about 10 days before I found out I need more points for that reservation. Actually even less than that because I could book a stay arriving December 26 that includes January 1, calling on January 26, 2009, 5 days after the notice.

I'm messing with you a little, it could have been 1 Feb and still been OK in my book.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I'm messing with you a little, it could have been 1 Feb and still been OK in my book.

You cut them way too much slack.

In regards to the other post (avoiding a long quote), I agree, you need to address your complaints at various levels, which I think many have done (and continue to do).

But I also realize working for a company that takes complaints VERY seriously, that even front line complaints are often heard at the top during reviews and quality control. Often there is no wall between the two and people do hear them.

It doesn't matter in our company if you call and complain to a general call center representative, our switchboard, or sent a complain to our mailroom employee, it will be tracked in most cases, logged and reviewed by our management teams who then analyze and report them to our Executive Management Group (which includes CEO and his direct reports). We are not a small company either, we have over 5,000 employees in the US, 10,000 agents, and over a few hundred thousand worldwide.

If a company takes complaints seriously, it shouldn't matter where the complaint starts.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

My stance with DVC is that MS and Members Satisfaction have little or no power other than over minor issues and one time fixes. They cannot change system issues and their input after a change means little in all but extreme and obvious circumstances. I'm not saying one should not complain if it's appropriate, only that this level is a waste of time to do so in policy matters such as this. And specifically to complain to MS and Mem Satisfaction ONLY is an invitation to keep getting the same result, patronized.

If you assume DVC is a monolithic corporation and it's us vs them, member feedback is probably of little value. But to the extent there is debate, or uncertainty within DVC, member feedback can be an important factor. Member feedback - by itself - isn't going to change much. But things won't change without that feedback.

I also think there are things than can change based on member feedback. While it probably won't sway Disney on policy matters such as whether to charge for valet, I think it can change their mind on things like communication channels (website posting vs email.)

 

[Dean]

You cut them way too much slack.

In regards to the other post (avoiding a long quote), I agree, you need to address your complaints at various levels, which I think many have done (and continue to do).

But I also realize working for a company that takes complaints VERY seriously, that even front line complaints are often heard at the top during reviews and quality control. Often there is no wall between the two and people do hear them.

It doesn't matter in our company if you call and complain to a general call center representative, our switchboard, or sent a complain to our mailroom employee, it will be tracked in most cases, logged and reviewed by our management teams who then analyze and report them to our Executive Management Group (which includes CEO and his direct reports). We are not a small company either, we have over 5,000 employees in the US, 10,000 agents, and over a few hundred thousand worldwide.

If a company takes complaints seriously, it shouldn't matter where the complaint starts.

The answer is "it depends". When a company makes a decision they know, or should know, is likely to cause consternation, they generally take into account that there will be complaints up front and generate some idea of how to deal with those. They are not going to re-evaluate the decision for each and every complaint that comes in and for the predictable complaints, all their going to look at are the numbers of complaints (and positive contacts) and a summary of the comments from the front line type people. OTOH, direct and appropriate contacts to higher level people will be given more weight, inappropriate ones such as many we've seen on this thread, won't matter where they're made. The truth is that an appropriate contact in this case will likely result more in information gathering for the member than in complaining and that most reasonable people will come away from such a contact agreeing with the decision though still unhappy about the method it was enacted. As I noted earlier, I've only seen posts from one person that suggests they've talked to someone who could actually give them info and they were satisfied that the actual decision was appropriate from the way I read their posts.

If you assume DVC is a monolithic corporation and it's us vs them, member feedback is probably of little value. But to the extent there is debate, or uncertainty within DVC, member feedback can be an important factor. Member feedback - by itself - isn't going to change much. But things won't change without that feedback.

I also think there are things than can change based on member feedback. While it probably won't sway Disney on policy matters such as whether to charge for valet, I think it can change their mind on things like communication channels (website posting vs email.)

I don't disagree with you overall. In many ways DVC has become somewhat us vs them though and has always been one member vs another to a degree. Timeshares usually have a certain amount of conflict of interest from one side to the other and DVC is actually more than most in this area. As I stated, I think member feedback at the lower levels for such an issue is pretty useless though maybe not totally so. The patronizing is predictable in such a situation, no one really should expect anything else. Still, I think it's very obvious that this is not a policy that will change unless there are changes in the facts of the case, namely a change in the before and after costs or some other material change. I also feel that a complain to MS and the member satisfaction team is pretty close to worthless is such a situation but more likely to be helpful when major decisions have not been made and implemented. There a dramatic difference between taking member input into account in making a decision and reversing a major decision that's already been made and implemented.

 

[DVCPAT]

I also feel that a complain to MS and the member satisfaction team is pretty close to worthless is such a situation but more likely to be helpful when major decisions have not been made and implemented. There a dramatic difference between taking member input into account in making a decision and reversing a major decision that's already been made and implemented.

I don’t think anyone expects an immediate reversal from a complaint. Time usually tells if decisions are good or bad. The first barometer is how your customers feel about the change. If you complain, they know your unhappy……unhappy customers don’t increase spending. As time passes, Disney will look at DVC member resort spending. If resort spending drops, Disney will decide if the decision increased profits.

I think the decision will be a lose/lose situation. The valet employees are going to lose a lot of income from tips creating unhappy employees. I would easily spend more tipping valet employees than the new $12.00 per day cost. Our resort hopping for lunch, dinner and souvenirs will greatly diminish.

I feel DVC members have made a long term commitment to Disney. If I don’t see a reciprocal benefit from being a member, I’ll go offsite. You can never go wrong when you reward loyal customers.

 

[Chuck S]

I don’t think anyone expects an immediate reversal from a complaint. Time usually tells if decisions are good or bad. The first barometer is how your customers feel about the change. If you complain, they know your unhappy……unhappy customers don’t increase spending. As time passes, Disney will look at DVC member resort spending. If resort spending drops, Disney will decide if the decision increased profits.

I think the decision will be a lose/lose situation. The valet employees are going to lose a lot of income from tips creating unhappy employees. I would easily spend more tipping valet employees than the new $12.00 per day cost. Our resort hopping for lunch, dinner and souvenirs will greatly diminish.

I feel DVC members have made a long term commitment to Disney. If I don’t see a reciprocal benefit from being a member, I’ll go offsite. You can never go wrong when you reward loyal customers.

Or, it may be that Disney did the analysis, and those members staying at SSR/OKW, resorts that never had free valet, had similar spending to those that stayed at the resorts that offered free valet. If that is true, it was likely a good decision on Disney's part. We have no way of knowing.

 

[DVCPAT]

Or, it may be that Disney did the analysis, and those members staying at SSR/OKW, resorts that never had free valet, had similar spending to those that stayed at the resorts that offered free valet. If that is true, it was likely a good decision on Disney's part. We have no way of knowing.

OKW and SSR members had to pay valet fees when visiting BWV, BCV, AKV and WLV resorts?

 

[Chuck S]

OKW and SSR members had to pay valet fees when visiting BWV, BCV, AKV and WLV resorts?

No, I'm saying those staying at SSR and OKW may have had similar spending patterns WDW Wide to those staying at a resort that had valet services. If that is true, there was no advantage to Disney offering the free valet.

For instance, if people staying at OKW/SRR spent about the same on restaurants, souvenirs and store items as those staying at a resort that offered valet services, what was the advantage to Disney of continuing the service?

 

[DVCPAT]

No, I'm saying those staying at SSR and OKW may have had similar spending patterns WDW Wide to those staying at a resort that had valet services. If that is true, there was no advantage to Disney offering the free valet.

For instance, if people staying at OKW/SRR spent about the same on restaurants, souvenirs and store items as those staying at a resort that offered valet services, what was the advantage to Disney of continuing the service?

But you did get free valet parking at BWV, BCV, AKV and WLV? Now you will have to spend an additional $12.00 + tip to shop around.

 

[Chuck S]

But you did get free valet parking at BWV, BCV, AKV and WLV? Now you will have to spend an additional $12.00 + tip to shop around.

No, I'll just self park, if I go to those resorts (MMmmm, Beaches & Cream.) My spending habits won't change. I just won't use the valet.

 

[DVCPAT]

No, I'll just self park, if I go to those resorts (MMmmm, Beaches & Cream.) My spending habits won't change. I just won't use the valet.

That’s the question. How many members will continue to accept the increase in costs and reduction of services? Everyone has a tipping point….yours hasn’t been reached.

 

[tjkraz]

I don’t think anyone expects an immediate reversal from a complaint. Time usually tells if decisions are good or bad. The first barometer is how your customers feel about the change. If you complain, they know your unhappy……unhappy customers don’t increase spending. As time passes, Disney will look at DVC member resort spending. If resort spending drops, Disney will decide if the decision increased profits.

But DVC knew going in that the decision would be unpopular with many members. The decision was apparently based upon the determination that it was not just to have 100% of members paying for a benefit only used by...significantly less than 100%. DVC would have gone into this with the expectation that the vast majority of those who were valet parking would be upset and/or complain about the change. Still, the numbers would speak for themselves.

I think the decision will be a lose/lose situation. The valet employees are going to lose a lot of income from tips creating unhappy employees. I would easily spend more tipping valet employees than the new $12.00 per day cost. Our resort hopping for lunch, dinner and souvenirs will greatly diminish.

Again, something DVC would have known up-front. In fact, as I suggested in another reply, you could certainly argue that it was in DISNEY'S best interest to subsidize parking. The company as a whole would stand to make millions of additional dollars per year in valet parking fees paid by member dues. The fact that they didn't go that route suggests that perhaps it wasn't in the best interest of DVC MEMBERS to do so.

I feel DVC members have made a long term commitment to Disney. If I don’t see a reciprocal benefit from being a member, I’ll go offsite. You can never go wrong when you reward loyal customers.

Disney doesn't do loyalty programs. Doesn't matter if you're a DVC member visiting every year, a local who visits every-other-weekend or a cash guest who drops $5 grand at the Poly every year. Disney doesn't have any magic punch card system where every 10th trip is free.

These so-called "loyalty programs" are most useful in competitive industries where all vendors offer a similar product. Office Max has a points program to keep you from buying the exact same product from Staples or Office Depot. Delta offers sky miles to keep you from flying Northwest or American. Alamo offers perks to keep you from renting from Budget or Hertz.

Apparently Disney doesn't feel similar competition exists in the theme park industry. It's been nearly a decade since they have had any sort of rewards club (Magic Kingdom Club / Disney Club?) And that situation isn't likely to change until the beancounters decide there's a financial reason to offer such benefits.

Discounts usually do increase business, but the question is whether the added business will exceed the cost of the perk. Let's say that Artist's Palette at SSR generates about $1 million in revenue per year and DVC is considering a 20% discount. With that discount, the restaurant now needs to generate $1.25 million in gross receipts (before 20% discount applied) just to equal the non-discounted revenues. And that doesn't take into account the added overhead involved with selling $1.25 million in product rather than $1 million. They would need to add more staff, have higher material costs, higher packaging costs, condiments, utilities, etc. Disney would probably need to see a 40-50% increase in sales to justify a 20% discount. Is that a realistic expectation?

If perks don't generate added revenue, they will disappear. If Artist's Palette offers that 20% discount and revenues go from $1 mil to $800,000 there's no sense in offering it. Disney isn't going to accept a $200k drop in sales on the assumption that the 20% dining discount will somehow increase DVC point sales.

 

[lochbox]

Has anyone noticed a lack of DVC sales or resales? Does anyone have any hard data on this?

I was considering a new contract but taking away the valet perk affected us tremendously. I wonder what is next to disappear. Therefore, all dvc future purchases are on indefinite hold.

 

[tjkraz]

Has anyone noticed a lack of DVC sales or resales? Does anyone have any hard data on this?

I was considering a new contract but taking away the valet perk affected us tremendously. I wonder what is next to disappear. Therefore, all dvc future purchases are on indefinite hold.

It would be nearly impossible to draw any conclusions based upon sales numbers. The change was only made 3 weeks ago. Even after some time has passed, sales will be impacted by a variety of factors including DVC's pricing, promotions offered, the state of the economy, and even seasonal fluctuations in demand for contracts.

The most sensible approach is to assume that EVERY SINGLE PERK could disappear someday. The only thing guaranteed is what's in the POS.

Even with all perks eliminated it doesn't change the fact that DVC allows me to vacation for pennies on the dollar over the next 4-5 decades. That's about the only factor that will ever play a role in my purchase decisions. The presence or absence of free valet parking, AP discounts or any other incentives would never play a role in my decision to add or not add more points.

 

[Dean]

I don’t think anyone expects an immediate reversal from a complaint. Time usually tells if decisions are good or bad. The first barometer is how your customers feel about the change. If you complain, they know your unhappy……unhappy customers don’t increase spending. As time passes, Disney will look at DVC member resort spending. If resort spending drops, Disney will decide if the decision increased profits.

I think the decision will be a lose/lose situation. The valet employees are going to lose a lot of income from tips creating unhappy employees. I would easily spend more tipping valet employees than the new $12.00 per day cost. Our resort hopping for lunch, dinner and souvenirs will greatly diminish.

I feel DVC members have made a long term commitment to Disney. If I don’t see a reciprocal benefit from being a member, I’ll go offsite. You can never go wrong when you reward loyal customers.

Given the responses on this thread I think some did expect an immediate reversal because they complained, if not why were there posts about selling, not recommending to friends and complaining about the canned responses. Disney looks at DVC spending now along with many other groups. However, while they are closely linked, DVC is not Disney or vice versa. DVC has a legal obligation to the members in spite of having multiple masters. Do realize all DVC owes us is a room and management of the resort itself.
While it may (or may not) be good business sense to provide more, there is no obligation to do so implied or otherwise and it's unreasonable to expect more, IMO. I think in many ways it's the entitlement mentality that's gotten where we are at this point.

Unfortunately we don't have all the facts to decide if this was truly a reasonable decision and we won't have the facts to re-evaluate the decision later.

On the surface DVC doesn't care specifically about the income of the valet employees or the profit of the contractor because they are not responsible, this is a different company. I'm sure that there were high level discussions between the resorts, DVC and the contractor around this issue and all concerned knew up front it was going to be a headache. But it will die down and short of the way it was implemented, it's really hard to argue with the decision no matter what the reason. Most such resorts charge more for valet than does DVC, many charge for self parking as well, often as much or more than the valet costs are at Disney. Few timeshares have valet parking at all and the only one I can think of that does and is free, doesn't have a place to self park.

It boils down to very simple issues. Is it reasonable to supplement valet parking for a subset of members by spreading the costs to the entire group. The answer is absolutely not UNLESS there are other benefits such as volume discounts. The idea that other items are paid for by the group that not everyone uses clearly is not a valid argument in this situation but merely childish ranting, IMO.

 

[DebbieB]

I think DVC could have saved themselves alot of grief by just coming out with an announcement and stating the reason. By mass communication, not burying it on the member website. I think the lack of communication just ticks people off more.

And maybe there would not have been a 1,000 post topic on Dis.....996......

 

[Dean]

I think DVC could have saved themselves alot of grief by just coming out with an announcement and stating the reason. By mass communication, not burying it on the member website. I think the lack of communication just ticks people off more.

And maybe there would not have been a 1,000 post topic on Dis.....996......

No argument from me. IMO it's how they've done a number of things the last couple of years I would quibble with, not the conclusions themselves.

 

[DVCPAT]

It boils down to very simple issues. Is it reasonable to supplement valet parking for a subset of members by spreading the costs to the entire group. The answer is absolutely not UNLESS there are other benefits such as volume discounts. The idea that other items are paid for by the group that not everyone uses clearly is not a valid argument in this situation but merely childish ranting, IMO.

You think Disney stopped free valet parking because it wasn’t fair to other members who don’t use it? Disney originally offered free valet for one reason, to get DVC members to spend money in DVC resorts. I think Disney is simply cutting costs.

 

[Golden Rose]

I think DVC could have saved themselves alot of grief by just coming out with an announcement and stating the reason. By mass communication, not burying it on the member website. I think the lack of communication just ticks people off more.

And maybe there would not have been a 1,000 post topic on Dis.....996......

I agree with this entirely. In all honesty, I don't care about valet parking. My car is my extended purse, and I don't like to give strangers access to it. The only time I consider using valet parking is when it is pouring down rain, or the self-parking lots are all full. (This is true of us in our daily lives, not just at WDW.)

However, I think the removal of this perk was handled absolutely terribly. I am appalled at how little notice members were given, and how the website continued to say it was offered after it was taken away. It wasn't buried on the website initially; it wasn't changed at all.

I don't mind them trying to keep dues down. I wholeheartedly approve of keeping dues down! And, I will say, when we were at the BWV just over a week ago, none of us had any trouble finding self-parking. Sometimes we had to walk a while, but the spaces were available. The guards were already doing a better job at keeping spaces for guests of the resort. So, what it comes down to for us is not what was done, but the way it was done.

It doesn't really lower the quality of our vacations, but it does lower our opinion of DVC. We're relatively new members (just a bit more than a year), so we don't remember any "good ol' days." What we do see is a complete lack of respect for DVC members... and that does worry us. We're not going to race out and sell our points. We love our points, and we've loved the DVC resorts we've stayed in. We are enjoying the timeshare world, and what this makes us do in more seriously consider buying other timeshares rather than adding on more DVC points. When we're ready to buy again, we'll certainly take how DVC treats its members into serious consideration. This one incident isn't that big a deal to us, if it is an isolated incident, but if it becomes part of pattern of terrible communication and decreased services, we'll certainly find other places to spend our money where we feel more appreciated.

 

[Dean]

You think Disney stopped free valet parking because it wasn’t fair to other members who don’t use it? Disney originally offered free valet for one reason, to get DVC members to spend money in DVC resorts. I think Disney is simply cutting costs.

In a way, I think DVC stopped free Valet parking because of a significant increase in price, basically from nothing to $12 per person per day which they would have had to pass on to the members then add their 12% management fee on top of. I don't think we can say for sure why DVC originally offered free valet but my understanding was it was included as a sales perk. I don't think there's any evidence it was a ploy to get them to spend more money as free ME is.