Room Ready System!!!!!!

[Daitcher]

By not accepting any view requests, people can't get disappointed when they don't get the view they want. However, they will be pleasantly surprised if they do get the view they want. The way to go is to eliminate view requests.

Couldn't agree more as my OP clearly points out. Thanks for the reply.

DAVE

 

[NMW]

I agree with Dave that ALL requests except non-smoking/smoking and HA (obviously some members will require these rooms) should be done away with. I am amazed at the amount of requests people make. I read somewhere in this thread a poster saying "ALL" I want is NS, top floor, Epcot view and I book at 11 mos and should get these things. If you "require" these things to have a good vacation, DVC probably isn't for you.

We make a NS request, that's it. I think people who make 3 and 4 requests are being ridiculous. Then, they get annoyed that their requests aren't met and demand another room. I don't care about it being a home resort, booked at 11 mos, it doesn't matter. I can't even believe people go through the trouble of switching rooms the following day just to be close to the elevator, or something crazy like that.

I can understand why BWV made boardwalk view a seperate booking category. There is a huge difference between seeing the boardwalk and seeing a parking lot. You pay extra for it at the BWI and it IS a seperate booking category for the hotel. The complaining CM's had to deal with must have been terrible. Now it's very clear. The only view people at the BC pay extra for is water view, which can be A LOT of things-pools, canals, the lake, I know, I've paid it a couple of times. I would think that being a DVC member if I checked in BCV and got a "water view", I'd be thrilled that I got it and that it didn't cost me more points! If I didn't get one, there's always next time.

Your whole proposal is fine with me, especially eliminating the location/view request part.

 

[DebbieB]

I don't see anything wrong with GENERAL requests. For example, at OKW we like water views. A friend of mine likes golf views. Why not try to satisfy that? Of course, it's not guaranteed.

 

[simzac]

Add us to the group of people who don't care where our room is or what our view is, we keep the curtains closed anyway. I like Dave's idea, for whatever my opinion is worth of course.

 

[jarestel]

By not accepting any view requests, people can't get disappointed when they don't get the view they want. However, they will be pleasantly surprised if they do get the view they want. The way to go is to eliminate view requests.

You can eliminate view requests, but that's not likely to be something that DVC will proudly point out to prospective members as one of the positive reasons for plunking down the cash for membership. So it won't happen, no matter how much wishing and posting goes on here. I can't explain why the folks who don't care where their room is care so passionately about other members who have location preferences, but that's another story I guess.

But I do like it when the pot gets stirred to frenzy level. Thanks, Dave!

 

[Dean]

I think they made a mistake at the BW when they broke out the standard view and then, later on, the Boardwalk view.

I'd agree that the standard view is likely a mistake in hind sight. But I'm certain that DVC felt they needed to do this to quell complaints and spur sales. And given over 10 years of experience with similar booking categories (standard view at BWV and standard vs ocean view at VB for example), I'm sure they knew exactly what they were getting into with the BW view issue. Frankly, I wish they'd do the same for NS as well and expect it's only a matter of time. If I were DVC, I'd certainly do away with frivolous requests such as specific buildings or rooms or even views in most cases.

 

[jarestel]

If I were DVC, I'd certainly do away with frivolous requests such as specific buildings or rooms or even views in most cases.

DVC/Disney doesn't do anything until someone else has demonstrated that the plan will be successful. Until many other hotels/resorts start refusing to accept guest requests and show that this type of "take it or leave it" mentality can work in the marketplace, DVC will sit on the sidelines and watch. Enjoy the view!

 

[carlos1117]

Friends,

Can I ask a question? If a Resort uses the "assigned" system and you arrive and "your" room isn't ready, why don't you just ask if any rooms are ready.

I done this and never had a problem. I usally hear something like "let me see what I have open". In the cases where there is nothing, it's off to a park, pool or pool bar (me and DW) and come back later.


Mike

 

[Dean]

DVC/Disney doesn't do anything until someone else has demonstrated that the plan will be successful. Until many other hotels/resorts start refusing to accept guest requests and show that this type of "take it or leave it" mentality can work in the marketplace, DVC will sit on the sidelines and watch. Enjoy the view!

Right now their taking them and almost always simply ignoring them. It's a recipe for disaster long term IMO. I don't know any system that does it that way. They are setting a precedent IMO but unless it hurts them financially or they get enough complaints from the members, it won't stop, though I suspect in the long term it will hurt them financially. MOST timeshares order requests something like in this order: members at that resort, others from the same system, cash renters, other exchangers.

 

[bobbiwoz]

. I can't explain why the folks who don't care where their room is care so passionately about other members who have location preferences, but that's another story I guess.

But I do like it when the pot gets stirred to frenzy level. Thanks, Dave!

Well, I for one would like a chance at a particularly nice view, and if I don't know about it, I can't ask for it. If I get it fine, but it should be the same chance as all members.

Bobbi

 

[jarestel]

Right now their taking them and almost always simply ignoring them. It's a recipe for disaster long term IMO. I don't know any system that does it that way. They are setting a precedent IMO but unless it hurts them financially or they get enough complaints from the members, it won't stop, though I suspect in the long term it will hurt them financially. MOST timeshares order requests something like in this order: members at that resort, others from the same system, cash renters, other exchangers.

I think we're on the same page, Dean. The problem, as I see it, isn't with the taking of requests, but more in the handling of them. All I'm saying is that eliminating requests altogether simply because DVC doesn't want to implement a coherent strategy for dealing with them doesn't make sense. It's way more of an administrative problem than a member problem.

 

[Dean]

I think we're on the same page, Dean. The problem, as I see it, isn't with the taking of requests, but more in the handling of them. All I'm saying is that eliminating requests altogether simply because DVC doesn't want to implement a coherent strategy for dealing with them doesn't make sense. It's way more of an administrative problem than a member problem.

I'm sure we're saying about the same thing from different angles. My ultimate point is that I'd like a system they put an effort into and I suspect it'll need to be very streamlined to have that happen. I'd like to know where I stand even though they wouldn't guarantee a specific request. If I know that priorities are given for home resort and/or based on when you booked, it would change my reservation habits. And if this were the case and I were buying, it would affect my decision which resort(s) to consider.

As a contrast, I just got a letter from Marriott's Grande Ocean specifying the preference priority in writing. For comparison, here it is:

1. Multi week owners from GO.
2. Single week owners from GO.
3. GO owners exchanging back in.
4. Multi week guests from other Marriott's.
5. Single week guests from other Marriott's.
6. Those renting for cash from Marriott. BTW, these are weeks reserved by members which Marriott rents out for them including high demande weeks.
7. Other exchangers.

 

[cdy16zz]

I'm sure we're saying about the same thing from different angles. My ultimate point is that I'd like a system they put an effort into and I suspect it'll need to be very streamlined to have that happen. I'd like to know where I stand even though they wouldn't guarantee a specific request. If I know that priorities are given for home resort and/or based on when you booked, it would change my reservation habits. And if this were the case and I were buying, it would affect my decision which resort(s) to consider.

As a contrast, I just got a letter from Marriott's Grande Ocean specifying the preference priority in writing. For comparison, here it is:

1. Multi week owners from GO.
2. Single week owners from GO.
3. GO owners exchanging back in.
4. Multi week guests from other Marriott's.
5. Single week guests from other Marriott's.
6. Those renting for cash from Marriott. BTW, these are weeks reserved by members which Marriott rents out for them including high demande weeks.
7. Other exchangers.

Now that sounds FAIR!!!!!!! I'm for a system like that!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dean]

Now that sounds FAIR!!!!!!! I'm for a system like that!!!!!!!!!

Obviously a weeks system is handled differently and somewhat less complicated to administer. But it did illustrate the type of issues that many resorts use to assign floating units. With DVC it could be as simple as home resort or when you booked for members, cash guests through CRO and exchangers. Reasonable requests are general location, smoking vs non and HC vs not (I know they are sometimes booked independently). And possibly in some cases a view type. I'd actually like to see Smoking vs non be a separate reservation type then it would be possible to either do away with or minimize requests anyway.

 

[carlos1117]

Dean,

I think that example system you mentioned would make owners very happy. I know it would make me happy.

 

[Daitcher]

I'm sure we're saying about the same thing from different angles. My ultimate point is that I'd like a system they put an effort into and I suspect it'll need to be very streamlined to have that happen. I'd like to know where I stand even though they wouldn't guarantee a specific request. If I know that priorities are given for home resort and/or based on when you booked, it would change my reservation habits. And if this were the case and I were buying, it would affect my decision which resort(s) to consider.

As a contrast, I just got a letter from Marriott's Grande Ocean specifying the preference priority in writing. For comparison, here it is:

1. Multi week owners from GO.
2. Single week owners from GO.
3. GO owners exchanging back in.
4. Multi week guests from other Marriott's.
5. Single week guests from other Marriott's.
6. Those renting for cash from Marriott. BTW, these are weeks reserved by members which Marriott rents out for them including high demande weeks.
7. Other exchangers.

Dean,

You know I'm usually with you on most things, but I can't get on board here. I do not believe your system would work and would do nothing to eliminate the unhappy guests. Lets say priority is given to owners based on how far out they book. Now lets say 40 owners book a top floor Epcot view non smoking room at BCV 11 months out. There might be only 20 of those rooms available. Under your system, 20 people go away frustrated with the potential for complaints. I can hear the yelling now " I'm a BCV owner and I booked this room 11 months out!" DVC is far to complex to implement this. Room ready when operated correctly is the fairest system IMO. Now one thing could be done at SSR, that is to make the rooms with a DTD view premium or preferred view and make them more points and a seperate booking category like they do at BWV. That is really the only other resort besides BWV where there is even a decent view anyway. OKW, BCV, VWL the view is terrible anyway. This is part of the reason DVC won't do much about view requests. They realize there are no "great views" at those resorts. They snicker at those complaints for views. At BWV they realized the BWV was worth a seperate booking category. Honestly how could you break down views at BCV, OKW or VWL? Good thoughts and I liked the Marriott info. because I stay there on cash a lot.

DAVE

 

[rwcmath]

We had a dedicated studio at VWL with a wonderful view. But yes, I'm hoping that SSR gets a DTD view category, it would be worth it.

rwc

 

[gppnj]

You can eliminate view requests, but that's not likely to be something that DVC will proudly point out to prospective members as one of the positive reasons for plunking down the cash for membership. So it won't happen, no matter how much wishing and posting goes on here.

I don't know about that. I haven't looked at any promotional materials super recently, but I don't recall views being touted as one of the selling points. There are a lot of things DVC claims are good about the DVC program, such as flexibility, money savings, nice accommodations, etc., but they've never tried to use good views as a reason to buy as far as I know. If they never really played up views before and continued not to play up views, I don't thknk a prospective buyer would even think to ask about what the policy is regarding views. I don't think that's something that even occurs to a vast majority of people until after they've bought and are ready to make a reservation (probably not even the first reservation).

 

[NMW]

When I purchased DVC I signed a contract that said I could make requests and that check-in was 4pm, the room ready policy negates both of those and that's why I sold. I'll go back to making my reservations and requests through CRO and paying more, but I'll know my requests will be more important and Disney will want to keep me, a paying customer, happy. Like I said, I never had a problem having my requests met in the past.
I suspect many LESS disappointing stays during my future Disney Vacations.

Maybe it's me, but I don't remember anything about requests in any of the promo material, the tour, our guides sales pitch and follow up conversations. I did not read it anywhere either. In fact until I read this board, I had no idea that members would even make so many requests. I agree with you paying through CRO and not being DVC. DVC probably isn't best for anyone who makes multiple requests and then has a dissappointing stay if they are not met. Good luck.

 

[jarestel]

I don't know about that. I haven't looked at any promotional materials super recently, but I don't recall views being touted as one of the selling points. There are a lot of things DVC claims are good about the DVC program, such as flexibility, money savings, nice accommodations, etc., but they've never tried to use good views as a reason to buy as far as I know. If they never really played up views before and continued not to play up views, I don't thknk a prospective buyer would even think to ask about what the policy is regarding views. I don't think that's something that even occurs to a vast majority of people until after they've bought and are ready to make a reservation (probably not even the first reservation).

Well, if you've been to the DVC models at SSR, I'd say that the stunning view of DTD was a prime reason for putting the models where they did. Even when the models were at the BW, prospective buyers ambled down the BW on their way to the sales offices. Not a bad view there either. So I can't agree with your assertion that views aren't played up to prospective customers today. Imagine a buyer who purchases DVC after seeing the models and then, upon making that first reservation and requesting the DTD view, hears that views aren't accepted and the member will have to just take whatever is available upon checkin? Happy camper? I don't think so.

The point is that whether or not views are important to me is irrelevant. I'm not the arbiter of what DVC members must accept as important or trivial. So if views are important to someone, I'm not going to decide that just because I don't care about views, that nobody should. That's just a bit to over the top for this humble poster.