OK. I had my call with Yvonne (and another person present). I just wanted to get the gist down quickly:
I really wanted to keep focused on a minimal number of issues - which in my case were:
1) That increasing the lock-off premium has to potential to NOT be beneficial to the membership and
2) That by using these changes to increase the lock-off premium once, what would stop them from further increases which could further reduce mine (and others) ability to book resorts.
I avoided arguing about demand - though she did reiterate what she has told others - that while studios are far in away the highest demand, 1-bedrooms are second, 2-bedrooms are third and GV are last. I simply stated that I am not in position to disagree because the data I have is limited to availability and availability does not equal demand. (I don't wholly believe that Disney is 100% correct in how it evaluates demand either - but there is no way to know this.
So - she continued to state that the reallocation is based on data analysis, and that data says that the they by increasing studios and 1-bedrooms, and lowering (somewhat) 2-bedrooms this will drive more people to 2-bedrooms.
To question #2, she said that any further changes would only be driven by doing what's best for the members - so essentially she said she could not predict what is going to happen in the future - but that it would be only done to benefit the membership.
I pointed out what COULD happen in this situation - that by increasing lock-out premiums, you COULD succeed in driving more people to 2-bedrooms - and you would need to at BWV for example get about 14% more lock-offs booked as 2-bedrooms to equalize out the points. But you COULD have the opposite effect, and find that it doesn't actually increase the number of people booking two bedrooms. I pointed to her for example that for a family like myself that only has 3 people you could raise studios 50% and I wouldn't be booking a 2-bedroom since my family has no need for that much space regardless. And I asked her what would be the response in that case where the data shows instead of driving people to 2-bedrooms it had no effect or the opposite effect (this circled back to my question #2 above). What she said is that every year the allocations are re-evaluated and there are adjustments made based on the data. In other words - she wasn't going to come out and say that they would roll it back, but the implication was if it didn't work then they would at least consider that option. (Editor's note: I don't believe this.)
Like with everyone else - she stressed that everything they had done was within the legal rights of DVC - but her reason for the rollback which is slightly different from what others have been told - was that some members were confused by the changes. (She used this word several times - "confused".) She admitted that in the past and in this case - they have done a very poor job in communicating with the membership the reason for the changes - which can leave members confused. That in the future they intend to be more forthcoming with the reasons for the changes to the allocation charts. She did NOT (of course) indicate that they would not make these (or similar) changes in the future. She also specified (and maybe the first time I've heard this) that what they are saying in their sales materials can also be confusing to the members. I also at this point said that I didn't think I personally had any confusion about what they could do - I just did not think that increases to the lock-off premium would occur since they would never be beneficial to the membership. She said that changes need to take into consideration all 65,000 members - not just myself. I agreed that I understood that a change may impact me negatively and I am OK with that, but want to be able to see where the change impacts members overall favorably.
She did take the time towards the end to take a little shot at me for being a resale owner - she re-iterated that they want to keep ALL owners satisfied regardless of whether DVC had seen a financial benefit from their membership or not - pointing out that in my case they did not. I could not let that go - and I pointed out that while they didn't receive a financial benefit from my purchase - Disney definitely receives a financial benefit from having me as a member. She conceded that comment as well. Her point was that Disney still wants to differentiate itself from others into how it treats its customers. I did reiterate both at the beginning and the end of the call how much I appreciated her time. (I spent roughly 30 minutes on the phone.) I did say that as a member I have been extremely happy up until this point, but feel that for the first time I have concerns about this membership with their ability.
In summary - I was not surprised that I did not get any warm fuzzies from this discussion. On the bright side, I got the impression that they might not be making all the same changes again next year because of the customer feedback they were receiving, even though they were well within their rights to make the change. That future change would be communicated better to the members. If the increase to the lock-off premium was not effective in doing what they wanted - they would re-consider it.
I am still not sure what to think of all this. The changes still don't 100% pass the sniff test with me. While they stay completely on-point about how legal it is, it seems to me like they keep changing the answer on why they rolled it back. (At one point negative feedback from a few members, now confusion by a number of members. She did not invoke the "less than 24" members number to me.) I am not sure that I am completely satisfied by the conversation, but don't know that further conversations would do any good. In all, I'm happy to have my voice heard, even if it's just one single solitary "YOP!"
It makes me continue in my "wait and see" attitude. I have no desire to sell points, but no desire to buy more points.
