NO MORE free valet parking for DVC members.

[Dean]

This is one of the issues I don't understand. Many have argued that Disney knew what they were doing here, and this was a well calculated decision and then took all of these things into account and measured and weighed before making this very difficult decision.

If that's all true, then why all this ironing out over time? If this was all calculated, didn't Disney know these issues would arise and shouldn't they have taken steps to remedy them before/at the change?

IMO, it simply points to this all being knee-jerk and a last minute decision. Just look at the way it was [not] announced.

You haven't seen me argue that this was a calculated move. My best guess is that it was a fairly short notice, quick decision type of thing based EITHER on a new contract negotiation OR a clause in the existing contract that kicked in. You've also seen me speculate that it's possible the # of valet spots are tied to the contract (you stated it was), if so, big mistake in conjunction with this move. You've also seen me state they need to make sure that non guests and employees are not parking in the main lots. No one has argued that how it was done was OK, only that the overall decision was appropriate in the big picture based on the cost issues at hand. IMO it was handled poorly, I stated specifically how I would have handled it had it been my decision making certain assumptions based in the info we know, no one seemed to have an issue with my summary in that regard.

Regardless and no matter all the other issues, it is inappropriate to expect others to pay for my usage. I believe one needs to make a case of why others should pay for my valet and I've not seen one ounce of reasoning that would support others paying for my usage. No volume discount, no cost or difficult in enforcement, not an integral part of resort amenities and certainly not that there are other things I don't use that are paid for commonly. If there are other issues that arise, as there are esp at BWV, then those issues must be dealt with in the all out.

When I joined DVC, I questioned my guide my guide how Disney benefits from offering me a room at such a reduced rate? He said Disney makes the real money when were on vacation. On site dining, shopping and park tickets are WDW best profit generators. As DVC membership grows, so does our spending. Disney knows DVC member spending contributes to the bottom line. On my recent trip, a cast member said the DVC members were a Godsend during slow periods. In another thread, a poster mentioned DVC member spending was mentioned in a Disney financial report.

I think your view of their "cost" is skewed. You need to think of it more as a condo than a hotel because they're getting income and passing risk to others and then still getting a fair amount of income over time. They will make more money on the DVC portion than they would a similar hotel setup with a lot less risk and they still get it back in the future. Plus they have guaranteed occupancy to shore up other areas such as retail, parks, restaurants, etc.

 

[Dean]

Good points. I will make sure to point that out to them on our next trip.

Point it out to who? DVC MS, valet, front desk, others at the pool. Other than well worded thoughts to middle to upper management at DVC, why waste anyone's time by sliding in low level insults to those that have no control and in some cases, may have been hurt by this change themselves. Write the letters that one feels appropriate otherwise vote with your feet and wallet as you see fit. Barb's along the way really aren't necessary are they?

 

[mopee3]

Point it out to who? DVC MS, valet, front desk, others at the pool. Other than well worded thoughts to middle to upper management at DVC, why waste anyone's time by sliding in low level insults to those that have no control and in some cases, may have been hurt by this change themselves. Write the letters that one feels appropriate otherwise vote with your feet and wallet as you see fit. Barb's along the way really aren't necessary are they?

Snap, smack, pow, wack um along the side of the head!!

Dean you aren't getting a little tired of this thread are you?

I mean it's only been running along for almost... gasp could it be... Yes 2 MONTHS!

You all have a Merry Christmas.

Moe

 

[jdg345]

I always use valet when staying at Disney. Not any more. My tips were generous both when dropping off the car and picking it up. Hey, it was otherwise free. I will also make it known to everyone that I am not happy with the cutback. Will the new policy take away from my future trips? No, but it doesn't mean I like it.

In the end, I really don't think Disney cares too much about the revenues here. I think they felt that by no longer subsidizing, it would just be more money in their pocket.

So far, it's pretty clear that the majority of valet users were DVC owners which means it was generating little/no revenue share. Mears likely realized this and was trying to get a piece of the pie -- it seems like that may have backfired on them.

IMO, the greatest threat to Disney is that Mears pulls out and they have to take valet in house again. If it comes to that, valet may just disappear entirely.

 

[jdg345]

You haven't seen me argue that this was a calculated move. My best guess is that it was a fairly short notice, quick decision type of thing based EITHER on a new contract negotiation OR a clause in the existing contract that kicked in. You've also seen me speculate that it's possible the # of valet spots are tied to the contract (you stated it was), if so, big mistake in conjunction with this move. You've also seen me state they need to make sure that non guests and employees are not parking in the main lots. No one has argued that how it was done was OK, only that the overall decision was appropriate in the big picture based on the cost issues at hand. IMO it was handled poorly, I stated specifically how I would have handled it had it been my decision making certain assumptions based in the info we know, no one seemed to have an issue with my summary in that regard.

Regardless and no matter all the other issues, it is inappropriate to expect others to pay for my usage. I believe one needs to make a case of why others should pay for my valet and I've not seen one ounce of reasoning that would support others paying for my usage. No volume discount, no cost or difficult in enforcement, not an integral part of resort amenities and certainly not that there are other things I don't use that are paid for commonly. If there are other issues that arise, as there are esp at BWV, then those issues must be dealt with in the all out.

<snip>

And to that end, this decision may end up costing them some money as well. We ultimately don't know that the subsidy paid was per car or if was based on certain thresholds of usage. So far they've needed to redo at least one lot and add/shift employees to monitor that lot. If they end up needing to hire a few people, they may find it may have been cheaper to just keep or re-negotiate the subsidy.

Mears has an option here too ... right now they're seeing their volume plummet, and by contract they need to staff at a certain minimum. It may be in their best interest to offer a DVC discount on their own. It wouldn't be free, but I suspect many would use the valet again if there was a hefty discount. The vendor needs to decide if they want some of something, or continue to get all of nothing. Of course, politics and ego come into play here, so I don't expect this to happen soon.

 

[cj9200]

Point it out to who? DVC MS, valet, front desk, others at the pool. Other than well worded thoughts to middle to upper management at DVC, why waste anyone's time by sliding in low level insults to those that have no control and in some cases, may have been hurt by this change themselves. Write the letters that one feels appropriate otherwise vote with your feet and wallet as you see fit. Barb's along the way really aren't necessary are they?

New to this thread but if you think I am going to take out my displeasure on the valet people that will not be getting tips to pick up or drop off the car, you are mistaken. They are the ones getting hurt by this. I imagine some may lose their jobs. I do not know about you, but after a stay I usually get a feedback form about our visit. If something is less than magical, I point it out. They get read. I also comment on people/things that are extraordinary.

Yes, I will ask to see a manager to respectfully tell them my thoughts on the policy. No, they did not make the decision but they are the ones on the ground and I believe it does have an impact. Will the policy change? I doubt it but at least they will have my input.

 

[DVCPAT]

I doubt DVC members spend more than the average "three trips in a lifetime" Deluxe guest .

You think?? Not only do we spend a good amount of money every year, we bring guests (on our points) that spend a good amount of money.

 

[DVCPAT]

I think your view of their "cost" is skewed. You need to think of it more as a condo than a hotel because they're getting income and passing risk to others and then still getting a fair amount of income over time. They will make more money on the DVC portion than they would a similar hotel setup with a lot less risk and they still get it back in the future. Plus they have guaranteed occupancy to shore up other areas such as retail, parks, restaurants, etc.

You seem to know a lot about timeshares and give posters good advice. If my memory is correct, you’ve stated that SSR and then BLT would be the last DVC resorts built…..Why ???

 

[MELSMICE]

Originally Posted by crisi
I doubt DVC members spend more than the average "three trips in a lifetime" Deluxe guest .

I can guarantee that's wrong in our case. Some years we've been there 4X - spending anywhere between 4-14 days per trip. That's a lot of money spent at WDW in one year, let alone in a lifetime.

 

[Chuck S]

I can guarantee that's wrong in our case. Some years we've been there 4X - spending anywhere between 4-14 days per trip. That's a lot of money spent at WDW in one year, let alone in a lifetime.

But, while we may spend more $ as individuals, do we really spend more $ per occupied room night?

For instance, a CRO cash room may generate more $ over the course of a year because each person that occupies it is spending like it is a Once in a Lifetime vacation. Where as with DVC, most are return visitors and I would bet overall spend less per room night on souvenirs and food than a deluxe CRO guest.

 

[crisi]

But, while we may spend more $ as individuals, do we really spend more $ per occupied room night?

For instance, a CRO cash room may generate more $ over the course of a year because each person that occupies it is spending like it is a Once in a Lifetime vacation. Where as with DVC, most are return visitors and I would bet overall spend less per room night on souvenirs and food than a deluxe CRO guest.

Bingo, Chuck. Disney doesn't care too much about what individuals spend over the course of their lifetime. To them, one person that spends $10k over 21 room nights and 3 people that spend $15k over 21 room nights - the second batch looks like a better deal.

We are a CONSISTENT source of income for Disney. We are a near immediate return on capital. DVCers are a great deal - particularly at point of purchase, for Disney. We are not, however, Disney's highest margin customers per room night - and margin is profit.

I'm not making excuses for Disney, but trying to encourage people to think about it from Disney's point of view.

 

[DVCPAT]

I can guarantee that's wrong in our case. Some years we've been there 4X - spending anywhere between 4-14 days per trip. That's a lot of money spent at WDW in one year, let alone in a lifetime.

We average two WDW vacations per year…..my youngest daughters pin collection alone probably totals one deluxe vacation.

 

[Dean]

Snap, smack, pow, wack um along the side of the head!!

Dean you aren't getting a little tired of this thread are you?

I mean it's only been running along for almost... gasp could it be... Yes 2 MONTHS!

You all have a Merry Christmas.

Moe

Not at all, I prefer these type of threads to many of the others.

And to that end, this decision may end up costing them some money as well. We ultimately don't know that the subsidy paid was per car or if was based on certain thresholds of usage. So far they've needed to redo at least one lot and add/shift employees to monitor that lot. If they end up needing to hire a few people, they may find it may have been cheaper to just keep or re-negotiate the subsidy.

Mears has an option here too ... right now they're seeing their volume plummet, and by contract they need to staff at a certain minimum. It may be in their best interest to offer a DVC discount on their own. It wouldn't be free, but I suspect many would use the valet again if there was a hefty discount. The vendor needs to decide if they want some of something, or continue to get all of nothing. Of course, politics and ego come into play here, so I don't expect this to happen soon.

IMO whether this costs Disney in general is of no real consequence as it relates to DVCMC's decision and I think that's one of the issues that many are missing. This is simply a dues question as far as DVC is concerned. Certainly Disney and Mears may have other issues to deal with, that is their problem. As I noted previously, I wouldn't be surprised if they come back with a discount for such a reason or if Mears bolts at some point and Disney has to either do away with valet or take it back in house.

New to this thread but if you think I am going to take out my displeasure on the valet people that will not be getting tips to pick up or drop off the car, you are mistaken. They are the ones getting hurt by this. I imagine some may lose their jobs. I do not know about you, but after a stay I usually get a feedback form about our visit. If something is less than magical, I point it out. They get read. I also comment on people/things that are extraordinary.

Yes, I will ask to see a manager to respectfully tell them my thoughts on the policy. No, they did not make the decision but they are the ones on the ground and I believe it does have an impact. Will the policy change? I doubt it but at least they will have my input.

That's good, your message seemed to suggest otherwise. Actually speaking to a manager will not help either as this is a DVC issue and not really a resort management issue though obviously there is overlap.

You seem to know a lot about timeshares and give posters good advice. If my memory is correct, you’ve stated that SSR and then BLT would be the last DVC resorts built…..Why ???

Thank you for the kind words, I always try to help and be as honest as possible. I don't recall specifically saying that as an absolute (may have, just don't recall it) however I do think DVC is near the end of it's viability as an active sales timeshare entity unless they make major changes in their techniques and expectations plus figure out a way to have viable extension on existing resorts. I think DVC has basically saturated the market for WDW, shown themselves inept at off property timeshares and shown little interest in other park timeshares including France where they allowed Marriott to build instead of them.

I can guarantee that's wrong in our case. Some years we've been there 4X - spending anywhere between 4-14 days per trip. That's a lot of money spent at WDW in one year, let alone in a lifetime.

I don't think a given guest experience is really the issue but rather the aggregate. Plus it doesn't have to be the same guest, they are mostly interchangeable. I suspect DVC members spend far less per day on average than does the non DVC guest staying on property at a similar level of accommodations. Thus DVC is a bad investment when they can fill everything and a great investment when times are slow either seasonally or due to other factors including the economy. It's just like those restaurants that give a bonus for gift certificates.

 

[TLSnell1981]

But, while we may spend more $ as individuals, do we really spend more $ per occupied room night?

For instance, a CRO cash room may generate more $ over the course of a year because each person that occupies it is spending like it is a Once in a Lifetime vacation. Where as with DVC, most are return visitors and I would bet overall spend less per room night on souvenirs and food than a deluxe CRO guest.

Frequent and repeat customers matter to most businesses. DVCers fill rooms that would otherwise be empty. Seems like I've read, more than once...we're saving Disney's backside.

 

[Chuck S]

Frequent and repeat customers matter to most businesses. DVCers fill rooms that would otherwise be empty. Seems like I've read, more than once...we're saving Disney's backside.

Sure, the side sales of souvenirs and food by DVCers are income for Disney, not DVC. But evidently not income enough to encourage Disney to subsidize the cost of the perk. From a DVC standpoint, I really don't see anything to be gained by DVC Marketing underwriting the cost, either.

With DVC, the basic expenses of each resort are paid by dues, whether the room sits empty or not. With a cash room, Disney is not only out the loss of side sales, but also the operational costs for the resort if a cash room sits idle.

So the question is, will the valet contractor feel enough loss of business to offer members a discount on parking, or lead the contractor to negotiate a substantially discounted subsidy that could be absorbed by dues?

 

[RobDoc]

At the 2009 DVC Annual Meeting today, Jim Lewis commented on the loss of the Valet Parking perk - explaining that the service has always been provided by a 3rd party. That business offered the perk to DVC members but when their renewal contract was recently negotiated, they decided to no longer offer the service for free. Lewis indicated that DVC would be negotiating with them to offer Valet service to members at a discounted rate (but not Free any longer). No mention was made of any timetable for any potential discount.

Stay Tuned.

 

[TLSnell1981]

At the 2009 DVC Annual Meeting today, Jim Lewis commented on the loss of the Valet Parking perk - explaining that the service has always been provided by a 3rd party. That business offered the perk to DVC members but when their renewal contract was recently negotiated, they dscided to no longer offer the service for free. Lewis indicated that DVC would be negotiating with them to offer Valet service to members at a discounted rate (but not Free any longer). No mention was made of any timetable for any potential discount.

Stay Tuned.

Thanks for the information.

I personally think, a joint effort would benefit all parties. I wonder...how much this has affected the income of the valets?

 

[Sammie]

Thanks for the information.

I personally think, a joint effort would benefit all parties. I wonder...how much this has affected the income of the valets?

I don't know how much it has affected the income of the valets but it certainly has but some of them in a very nasty mood.

I had a horrible situation occur last week while staying at the BWV due to this change. I was caught in the middle of a very unpleasant situation between valet and bell services.

I can only hope that DVC will consider some change to this policy.

 

[crisi]

Frequent and repeat customers matter to most businesses. DVCers fill rooms that would otherwise be empty. Seems like I've read, more than once...we're saving Disney's backside.

Ah, but this is the wonderous thing about the timeshare model from Disney's point of view. A cash customer they upset will just not come back. But our ability to change our vacation behavior is significantly reduced by our fairly significant spend on our contracts. In order to get value out of our "investment" in DVC, we need to use our points. We've gone from being repeat customers to being captured customers. Its like when WalMart manages to push out other businesses within 30 miles and then raises their prices (which they've been known to do).

To stop being a captured customer we need to provide them with a replacement captured customer - at no cost to them! We rent or sell our points - or trade them.

 

[jdg345]

At the 2009 DVC Annual Meeting today, Jim Lewis commented on the loss of the Valet Parking perk - explaining that the service has always been provided by a 3rd party. That business offered the perk to DVC members but when their renewal contract was recently negotiated, they decided to no longer offer the service for free. Lewis indicated that DVC would be negotiating with them to offer Valet service to members at a discounted rate (but not Free any longer). No mention was made of any timetable for any potential discount.

Stay Tuned.

Thanks Doc!

Bolded the part that sounded familiar to me for some reason.

Of course, I think it's more Mears looking to negotiate a deal here than DVC.