subjec
Good point...maybe their way of handling it is to ignore some feedback, since they are in charge of determining whether it's a legitimate concern or not. The restaurants are in a bit of a different situation though, as guests speak to managers right away, so they have to determine the legitimacy of a complaint right then and there, which is much different than us writing our complaints to the corporate office or online feedback.
Remember, though, that the in-the-moment, "I'm dissatisfied by this," comment is actually two things: It is a prompt to make that customer happy at that moment, and a prompt to address what caused the customer to be unhappy. Disney CMs always look (and should look) for an expedient way to accomplish the former. We're talking about the latter - Disney factoring in complaints into their decisions about how they do things. That's where complaints are generally not useful because there are far better ways to gather the information and understanding necessary to make the right decisions in that regard.
Yup, I totally agree about reporting problems since it may ultimately come out of our dues, but there also needs to be some responsibility on the part of maintenance and housekeeping.
If you think the balance that DVC has struck in that regard is not correct then we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
It is surely not an absolute: It is a decision, a balance to be struck with no specific point being the only logical balance, and indeed every point on the scale is valid, in the DVC context. It's just a matter of choosing one based on what's best overall, and then setting our fees based on how much achieving that costs.
We've seen some yucky stuff left in our villas, and wondered how that got missed, as it was in plain sight? So, it seems as if DVC is passing some of that responsibility from their shoulders to ours, as they more than likely can't keep up with the repairs, etc.
That only makes sense if you believe that your preference with regard to where to strike the balance is the only valid determination. That's not true.
I think a lot of that disconnect comes from the fact that we're often not aware of just how much certain things cost. My boss recently asked me to do something. I told him, "Okay, that'll take six years (given the current allocation of resources)." He was flabbergasted. Don't get me wrong - he's a smart guy, and knows the business, but we've kept him insulated from some of the more complex portions of the infrastructure, so he didn't realize that something he wants might cost more than what he would think - that essentially it is too expensive for his tastes, and therefore he'd really rather we not do that. And it works both ways. There are myriad directions that we foresaw in our original design, and so we often encounter situations where the boss says, "It would be really nice if we could shake free a few months to do XXXX," to which I reply, "Let me just flip the switch and turn XXXX on."
The point is that unless you have a full and comprehensive understanding of just what it would take to accomplish something, including all the costs and within the context of all the limitations you can't really say anything is absolutely worthwhile. There are no sacred cows. Everything is an open question.
At this point, I have confused myself.
It's been a very long day, in which I spent most of it with a splitting headache dealing with two kids who didn't want to get along, and mountains of laundry. The DIS was supposed to be some quiet time for me, but this discussion has hurt my head.
Best to stick with threads created by Monkey Boy (or perhaps, now, low-key) when in that condition.
The bottom line is that Disney food is affordable for some, and not for others.
Agreed, and that really crystallizes the situation: The dependencies are on the guest, i.e., the guest's ability to afford - not on Disney, i.e., Disney's pricing.
Tiger
