DVC Club Level and Home Resort Survey

[walt34]

Good to see the discussion and debate over Yvonne Chang's response to a question at the recent Association Annual meeting. Here's a link to an article from DVCNews.com directly quoting Chang as saying: "Our plans right now are for the new tower to be part of the existing Polynesian resort." https://dvcnews.com/wdw-resorts/pol...esian-tower-to-be-part-of-current-association

I can certainly understand why many may latch on to this response and believe it to mean, without a doubt, that the Poly Tower will be in the same association as PVB. Especially those who are reading it with confirmation bias. But nowhere in that statement does the word "association" appear. What she said was that it would be part of the same resort. Well duh, we can see that. I won't even touch on the standard waffle phrase of "our plans right now...." as that gives an out and means that things change.

If you stand back and view her response through a different lens, it's actually kinda brilliant. Here's why:

1. DVC had to know the question would come up and it's not good form to not provide an answer, so they answered.
2. They positively answered the question by saying it would be part of the existing "resort". They know it's a charged question that will upset some folks whichever way it goes, so why upset them now?
3. The response didn't disclose ANYTHING that we didn't already know, to wit, the Tower is "part of the same resort."
4. The article even acknowledges that it ain't a done deal by saying "the legal setup will not be fully confirmed until the condo association is amended to add the new tower" immediately preceding the quote attributed to Chang.

We have nothing to say on the matter at this time (in different words) has long been the standard answer on this subject. Why answer now?

So are you saying that the point of her answer was to confirm that the Poly tower stands where we can see it?

 

[BeachClub2014]

We have nothing to say on the matter at this time (in different words) has long been the standard answer on this subject. Why answer now?

So are you saying that the point of her answer was to confirm that the Poly tower stands where we can see it?

No. Not at all. I am saying it may (by looking at it through a different lens) actually be a well-crafted response by providing a non-answer answer to a question that they knew would require an answer. We already knew that it'd be part of the same resort, we can all see it being built and it's being themed to the Polynesian Resort. So, no earth-shattering revelations in that response.

 

[Paul Stupin]

Good to see the discussion and debate over Yvonne Chang's response to a question at the recent Association Annual meeting. Here's a link to an article from DVCNews.com directly quoting Chang as saying: "Our plans right now are for the new tower to be part of the existing Polynesian resort." https://dvcnews.com/wdw-resorts/pol...esian-tower-to-be-part-of-current-association

I can certainly understand why many may latch on to this response and believe it to mean, without a doubt, that the Poly Tower will be in the same association as PVB. Especially those who are reading it with confirmation bias. But nowhere in that statement does the word "association" appear. What she said was that it would be part of the same resort. Well duh, we can see that. I won't even touch on the standard waffle phrase of "our plans right now...." as that gives an out and means that things change.

If you stand back and view her response through a different lens, it's actually kinda brilliant. Here's why:

1. DVC had to know the question would come up and it's not good form to not provide an answer, so they answered.
2. They positively answered the question by saying it would be part of the existing "resort". They know it's a charged question that will upset some folks whichever way it goes, so why upset them now?
3. The response didn't disclose ANYTHING that we didn't already know, to wit, the Tower is "part of the same resort."
4. The article even acknowledges that it ain't a done deal by saying "the legal setup will not be fully confirmed until the condo association is amended to add the new tower" immediately preceding the quote attributed to Chang.

Ok, so if Poly2 does not wind up in the association and winds up being sold as some sort of a trust, and DVC owners are confused because they believe they were told otherwise, I guess you’re saying that Yvonne might be able to cheerfully respond by saying something like “Oh, I’m sorry you jumped to the wrong conclusion, but if you parse my exact phraseology, and take a closer look at every single word I said through the exact letter of Florida State Law, you’ll realize that I basically guaranteed you nothing by hinting at an answer you wanted to hear…because, uh, it wouldn‘t have been good form to handle the situation any other way, like, perhaps, just refraining to answer the question at all.”

 

[walt34]

No. Not at all. I am saying it may (by looking at it through a different lens) actually be a well-crafted response by providing a non-answer answer to a question that they knew would require an answer. We already knew that it'd be part of the same resort, we can all see it being built and it's being themed to the Polynesian Resort. So, no earth-shattering revelations in that response.

So you do want to say that she pointed out the obvious in her answer. She must be funnier in person, then. The tongue in cheek delivery must have gotten lost in the reporting. If it wasn't intended as funny, it would be pretty rude and pointless to deflect the question in this way. Why would she do that?

I guess at least the reaction in the room should have pointed to a serious misunderstanding, that is also reflected in the reporting on most DVC news sites. Maybe a good reason for a clarification? What does DVD gain from the confusion? Some people who are interested in Poly 2 might now buy poly resale and be disappointed afterwards when they cannot book poly 2 at 11 months.

 

[J-Dog]

Maybe there is another spin that we are not aware of which makes Poly2 or parts of it accessible to Poly1 owners that we don't know about and DVD doesn't want to explain at this point. Could explain the communication silence.

I agree. I think that it would almost have to be this. Or, of course, it could have no trust association whatsoever.

Good to see the discussion and debate over Yvonne Chang's response to a question at the recent Association Annual meeting. Here's a link to an article from DVCNews.com directly quoting Chang as saying: "Our plans right now are for the new tower to be part of the existing Polynesian resort." https://dvcnews.com/wdw-resorts/pol...esian-tower-to-be-part-of-current-association

I can certainly understand why many may latch on to this response and believe it to mean, without a doubt, that the Poly Tower will be in the same association as PVB. Especially those who are reading it with confirmation bias. But nowhere in that statement does the word "association" appear. What she said was that it would be part of the same resort. Well duh, we can see that. I won't even touch on the standard waffle phrase of "our plans right now...." as that gives an out and means that things change.

If you stand back and view her response through a different lens, it's actually kinda brilliant. Here's why:

1. DVC had to know the question would come up and it's not good form to not provide an answer, so they answered.
2. They positively answered the question by saying it would be part of the existing "resort". They know it's a charged question that will upset some folks whichever way it goes, so why upset them now?
3. The response didn't disclose ANYTHING that we didn't already know, to wit, the Tower is "part of the same resort."
4. The article even acknowledges that it ain't a done deal by saying "the legal setup will not be fully confirmed until the condo association is amended to add the new tower" immediately preceding the quote attributed to Chang.

Hmmm. I never considered that - you might be right, but it still seems like that would be bad P.R. to give such a legalese answer that could be twisted later-on to say "Ha Ha! You all mis-understood my answer! We got you good!"

 

[BeachClub2014]

Ok, so if Poly2 does not wind up in the association and winds up being sold as some sort of a trust, and DVC owners are confused because they believe they were told otherwise, I guess you’re saying that Yvonne might be able to cheerfully respond by saying something like “Oh, I’m sorry you jumped to the wrong conclusion, but if you parse my exact phraseology, and take a closer look at every single word I said through the exact letter of Florida State Law, you’ll realize that I basically guaranteed you nothing by hinting at an answer you wanted to hear…because, uh, it wouldn‘t have been good form to handle the situation any other way, like, perhaps, just refraining to answer the question at all.”

Lol, love the sarcasm, nicely done.

All I am saying is that many people are interpreting her response in the manner in which they choose to interpret it, myself included. I don't think the statement, in either the ACTUAL words used or intent, indicates anything about the future association or manner in which units in the Tower will be sold.

I also don't agree with your premise that DVC owners are confused. That appears to be a blanket statement about all DVC owners. Heck, I bet the majority are blissfully ignorant of the whole discussion and debate and won't be the least bit confused or concerned, no matter what happens. Some owners certainly will be.

 

[J-Dog]

So you do want to say that she pointed out the obvious in her answer. She must be funnier in person, then. The tongue in cheek delivery must have gotten lost in the reporting. If it wasn't intended as funny, it would be pretty rude and pointless to deflect the question in this way. Why would she do that?

I guess at least the reaction in the room should have pointed to a serious misunderstanding, that is also reflected in the reporting on most DVC news sites. Maybe a good reason for a clarification? What does DVD gain from the confusion? Some people who are interested in Poly 2 might now buy poly resale and be disappointed afterwards when they cannot book poly 2 at 11 months.

Yep. Totally. I posted almost the same thing at the same time as you,.

 

[BeachClub2014]

So you do want to say that she pointed out the obvious in her answer. She must be funnier in person, then. The tongue in cheek delivery must have gotten lost in the reporting. If it wasn't intended as funny, it would be pretty rude and pointless to deflect the question in this way. Why would she do that?

I guess at least the reaction in the room should have pointed to a serious misunderstanding, that is also reflected in the reporting on most DVC news sites. Maybe a good reason for a clarification? What does DVD gain from the confusion? Some people who are interested in Poly 2 might now buy poly resale and be disappointed afterwards when they cannot book poly 2 at 11 months.

Who said anything about her trying to be funny? Not me.

Totally agree with you about the disappointment some may have if they rushed out to buy PVB resale contracts based solely on this statement. That would also be a very foolish thing to have done, in my view.

 

[walt34]

See, that's why I think there are two options:

- the statement was well prepared and delivered: then I don't understand the purpose
- the statement was not well prepared or a mistake, at least in delivery: then we don't need to spend much time on interpreting it.

 

[BeachClub2014]

See, that's why I think there are two options:

- the statement was well prepared and delivered: then I don't understand the purpose
- the statement was not well prepared or a mistake, at least in delivery: then we don't need to spend much time on interpreting it.

Ok.

I have no idea whether it was well prepared and delivered, or not. Either is possible. I only offer a different perspective on what may have happened.

Based on the actual words used, I reached a different understanding and conclusion as to meaning.

 

[MyDogTink]

I really don’t think DVC will address her statement. Many websites/social media groups gave their interpretation. Nothing was a DVC publication.

IMO, DVC has had other recent blunders, such as Moonlight Magic and BWV refurbs, and they don’t seem too interested in DVC member opinions for those.

 

[walt34]

Based on the actual words used, I reached a different understanding and conclusion as to meaning.

We don't disagree here, the statement did not actually say what was reported afterwards. We disagree on whether this was a smart deflection or mishandled communication. Judging from the resulting confusion, I'd say it was the later.

 

[CarolynFH]

I would like to point out, for the benefit of those who have forgotten or who haven’t been around here long enough to know, that in early 2019 during the great 2020 point chart debacle it was Yvonne Chang who told one of the Notorious 24 that 1BR villas were absolutely in greater demand than 2BR, which justified raising the nightly points cost for 1BR and studios and lowering it for 2BR.

IOW, she’s had practice in making statements as told.

 

[BeachClub2014]

We don't disagree here, the statement did not actually say what was reported afterwards. We disagree on whether this was a smart deflection or mishandled communication. Judging from the resulting confusion, I'd say it was the later.

I don't know that we disagree on this. It could be either scenario. I'm open to believing it could be either a smart deflection or just mishandled communication. Only Yvonne and the rest of the DVC execs know the answer to that question, and they ain't talking.

 

[Paul Stupin]

Lol, love the sarcasm, nicely done.

All I am saying is that many people are interpreting her response in the manner in which they choose to interpret it, myself included. I don't think the statement, in either the ACTUAL words used or intent, indicates anything about the future association or manner in which units in the Tower will be sold.

I also don't agree with your premise that DVC owners are confused. That appears to be a blanket statement about all DVC owners. Heck, I bet the majority are blissfully ignorant of the whole discussion and debate and won't be the least bit confused or concerned, no matter what happens. Some owners certainly will be.

But judging from the positive reaction in the room after Yvonne’s words, every single DVC owner present was confused, because they all seemed pleased about the single association, which you seem to be saying was not the intent of Yvonne’s words at all.

 

[J-Dog]

I would like to point out, for the benefit of those who have forgotten or who haven’t been around here long enough to know, that in early 2019 during the great 2020 point chart debacle it was Yvonne Chang who told one of the Notorious 24 that 1BR villas were absolutely in greater demand than 2BR, which justified raising the nightly points cost for 1BR and studios and lowering it for 2BR.

IOW, she’s had practice in making statements as told.

So maybe she's the scapegoat that the other exec's force to make unreliable/off-the-cuff comments because her reputation for truthfulness is already in question?

 

[BeachClub2014]

But judging from the positive reaction in the room after Yvonne’s words, every single DVC owner present was confused, because they all seemed pleased about the single association, which you seem to be saying was not the intent of Yvonne’s words at all.

I have no way of knowing what the intent of her answer was. I'm only commenting on the actual words she used and taking them at face value.

Poly Tower may be placed into the existing PVB association in the manner that many people believe Chang was alluding to in her answer. Or it may not. Time will tell.

My only point is that there is plenty of room for people to reach different conclusions as to what her actual words meant. And that seems to ruffle feathers around here.

 

[Sandisw]

Yep, all speculation! But there is a reason not to officially confirm. I think timeshares everywhere, but especially in Florida, are highly regulated, involving months and months of legal filings and paperwork. This process is probably not yet completed, prohibiting DVD from confirming anything,

Yet it’s still hard for me to believe that they would potentially jeopardize Poly2 sales by angering Poly1 owners who they will have misled, and then charging extra for priority booking at other resorts, whether they are current ones not selling, or ones yet to be built…especially since direct points can already be used at 7 months to book anywhere.

Again, they had no problem with saying it for VGF. Same laws applied if it is going to the same.

So, if they didn’t need to be careful about laws with BPK, then they didn’t need to come December.

If it is added to the trust, I don’t think anyone has a right be to that angry because it was not a confirmation. It was a Probcbly but subject to change.

 

[J-Dog]

I have no way of knowing what the intent of her answer was. I'm only commenting on the actual words she used and taking them at face value.

Poly Tower may be placed into the existing PVB association in the manner that many people believe Chang was alluding to in her answer. Or it may not. Time will tell.

My only point is that there is plenty of room for people to reach different conclusions as to what her actual words meant. And that seems to ruffle feathers around here.

This reminds me of William Shatner's comments about how he hated Trekkies, because they would take one minute detail from the show and over-analyze it to well beyond what the producers or actors ever intended it to be.

 

[BeachClub2014]

This reminds me of William Shatner's comments about how he hated Trekkies, because they would take one minute detail from the show and over-analyze it to well beyond what the producers or actors ever intended it to be.

Exactly. And you have to admit, it's an awfully fun discussion and debate.