Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[tjkraz]

For high DVC occupancy times, yes, I would agree with the above quote Tim. I mentioned this. Food & Wine, early Dec and all holiday times (Christmas/New Years/Pres Week/Easter/July 4th/Thanksgiving).

This still leaves ALOT of time during the year where we have had absolutely no trouble getting into a DVC resort. I've been able to book often at under 4-5 months.

What about 4-5 weeks or 4-5 days? You have to think bigger picture--or I should say DVC must think big picture.

Anytime they are forced to turn-away potential guests due to lack of availability on weekdays--while weekend rooms sit empty--there is a problem.

I'm sure there are also periods where resorts are at less than 100% occupancy during the weekdays. But if it's 90% weekday, 50% weekend, there is still an imbalance to be addressed.

[MiaSRN62]

Anal Annie : I just hope there are enough studios to go around now for everybody who has to cut back on their unit size to meet the new point requirements. I wonder if they will track these kinds of pattern changes to see how the new charts affect things like this.


This is what I'm wondering Anal Annie.....I think a fair amount of families will be downgrading their room sizes (us included in that), thus increasing demand for studios/1 bedrooms. I could see 1 bedrooms at AKV and BLT going FAST---since they can sleep 5 and will be a point saver for families now with this allocation. I can see us now staying in "2" studios vs "1" two bedroom villa at OKW to save points. It's a difference of 24 weeknight points vs 36 weeknight points. Yes, we'll miss the laundry most....the full kitchen second.....but I cannot accept 36 points a night up from 30. Since we own 150 points at OKW, instead of now having to pay 180 points/year for our usual 2 bedroom, we'll be paying 120 points for two studios. And bank 60 points or use it to try and book AKV at 7 months out (in addition to our 100 points we own there to give us 160 at 7 months out). We plan to work the points however we can to our advantage.

Time will tell how the allocation will affect the demand and availability of smaller units.

[MiaSRN62]

What about 4-5 weeks or 4-5 days? You have to think bigger picture--or I should say DVC must think big picture.


I've never tried that late out Tim, so honestly, I don't know what it's like. But I'll repeat...just don't feel any timeshare is designed to work as efficiently for the owner without planning further out. But like I said, that one time, I did get VWL at 45 days out in Oct '06. So I'd say it's possible as long as it's not really high occupancy time. I just wouldn't recommend it. I would suppose only locals or those within short driving distance would be interested in 4-5 days out. Because booking airfare at this late point is definitely not cost effective or even possible at alot of times.

[photobob]

I'll bet Thursdays will be very easy to get now that all the Sun-Thur peeps have to drop a night off their trips. I just hope there are enough studios to go around now for everybody who has to cut back on their unit size to meet the new point requirements. I wonder if they will track these kinds of pattern changes to see how the new charts affect things like this.

That's a good point Annie. I'm probably looking at dropping unit size to maximize the time I can go. I think it will make it even more imperative to plan early and may make the seven month window for smaller units even more difficult to get than in the past. I think the "buy where you want to stay" slogan will be more relevant than ever before.

On a positive note, I guess I hadn't looked before but I was pleased to see that the THV are the same point cost as a 2 BDR. I was thinking that they would probably be somewhere between a 2 bdr and a GV.

[DaveH]

My experiences since 2001 is that 2BR and studios book first. I have found some studios at last minute, but they were only for 1 or 2 days together. If you wanted a week, you may have to change resorts 2 or 3 times. A 1BR most of the time could be found somewhere. Now some of the changes folks will decide to do could make studios harder at 7 months. I wonder if some 2 BR will come available and 1BR less, we do not know. I honestly believe the developer points have made making some ressies harder at smaller resorts. We had developer points when we added on in 2007. We could use them anywhere at 7 months. We used them at a smaller resort. When we started we could get OKW almost anytime. Now OKW was full, but SSR had some, but getting harder. Most of our ressies are done between 11 and 7 months, but have done some with less time.

[dclfun]

My family is lucky to be probably the least affected by the changes- we live locally and other than Jan-March I can put in for vacation time whenever I want. The flexibility involved in our DVC purchases were one of the reasons we didn't look into a traditional timeshare, plus of course being on property. We've used weekend stays but the high point cost has driven me to book cash nights instead at other WDW resorts- either way Disney is getting my money. While I've always understood the difference between "member points" and inventory available for cash only, why is it then that often a CRO promo will include a bigger discount for cash guests booking SSR or OKW- is there really that much space to fill that isn't used by members/can't be used by members using points? Will this allocation also help with that situation? Many cash guests question the value of SSR and/or OKW since they're often left to reserve after other resorts are sold out- why are there so many leftovers at those resorts then even on weekdays- is it unused inventory or inventory that can only be booked via a cash ressie?---Kathy

[DaveH]

While I've always understood the difference between "member points" and inventory available for cash only, why is it then that often a CRO promo will include a bigger discount for cash guests booking SSR or OKW- is there really that much space to fill that isn't used by members/can't be used by members using points? Will this allocation also help with that situation? Many cash guests question the value of SSR and/or OKW since they're often left to reserve after other resorts are sold out- why are there so many leftovers at those resorts then even on weekdays- is it unused inventory or inventory that can only be booked via a cash ressie?---Kathy

I believe this is because allot of us use to points to do something outside DVC resorts, like cruises, DL and RCI.

[bobbiwoz]

I figured out that the lower weekend points will enable me to just about "walk" reservations for 2 weekend nights for the VB BC when I couldn't do so before. I would have to get rid of Friday night on the next day, but I could do it. If for me, than for others, and this brings me to my former objection with the new booking system for day of arrival. Has anyone else found they can do that now/not before? I'm writing another letter to MS, I know that some don't agree with me, but I do not think that walking should be allowed. There should be some restrictions other than the number of points a member has. I am much more disturbed by walking than the point chart adjustment.

Bobbi:)

[BobH]

It is constantly repeated in our current economic crisis that corporations and banks need to make their operations more "transparent" to instill consumer trust and confidence. I am witholding my judgement (for now) on the necessity to make this most recent point re-allocation. However, I firmly believe that the Disney Vacation Club could use their annual "feel good" member meetings to give us all a slight clue as to what is going on behind the scene. After all they do want us to buy more points don't they? It is starting to feel like Jim Lewis is the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, and who knows what the Disney organization is up to. From a public relations standpoint DVC management is treating us all like mushrooms - feeding us bs and keeping us in the dark. I support the whole DVC concept, but I resent the lack of transparency and information regarding these big changes.....

[dclfun]

I figured out that the lower weekend points will enable me to just about "walk" reservations for 2 weekend nights for the VB BC when I couldn't do so before. I would have to get rid of Friday night on the next day, but I could do it. If for me, than for others, and this brings me to my former objection with the new booking system for day of arrival. Has anyone else found they can do that now/not before? I'm writing another letter to MS, I know that some don't agree with me, but I do not think that walking should be allowed. There should be some restrictions other than the number of points a member has. I am much more disturbed by walking than the point chart adjustment.

Bobbi:)

Bobbi- I feel the same way about "walking". I already know it's shut me out of two different preferred check in dates I wanted in the resort/room type I wanted for December 09 and a very nice MS agent told me how I should book w/in the next two days to get the next week instead. I asked about someone walking a ressie and was told it's no longer allowed, however a member can add on additional days and then I guess they can call back later and cancel off the beginning dates they never wanted to start with. So I guess the only thing that can no longer be done is to move the entire ressie forward day by day. Big deal- someone with lots of points can still walk by adding then removing days later. Fortunately I could choose an alternate date, but some may not be able to do so, or may need more rooms and thus even have a greater challenge. I was on pins and needles calling right at 9 am at exactly the right date and thus did get my third choice option. I could have waitlisted the week I really wanted, but now with restrictions on how many waitlists we can have, eventually that could put people in a bind too....sigh. I guess I'll have to learn to figure new strategies but I detest having to play a game or try to outwit other members who have found a way to cheat the system. Not saying I blame them either if it's the only way to get what you want and I guess it's not really cheating either since it's allowed- it just doesn't sit well with me to book dates I never wanted to start with just to get the dates I do want, and thus prevent another member from getting something I'm holding. ---Kathy

[Chuck S]

While I've always understood the difference between "member points" and inventory available for cash only, why is it then that often a CRO promo will include a bigger discount for cash guests booking SSR or OKW- is there really that much space to fill that isn't used by members/can't be used by members using points? Will this allocation also help with that situation? Many cash guests question the value of SSR and/or OKW since they're often left to reserve after other resorts are sold out- why are there so many leftovers at those resorts then even on weekdays- is it unused inventory or inventory that can only be booked via a cash ressie?---Kathy


The re-allocation may or may not have any impact on the cash inventory. If the inventory is available because of breakage (unreserved DVC rooms at 60 days) it may have a small impact. However, most CRO cash rooms come from member trades, and any unsold inventory DVD may have. They could have a lot of OKW/SSR inventory because of ROFR, and any unsold points/undeclared units in the SSR treehouse addition.

I know for several trips to OKW they were pushing add-ons at OKW through phone calls, so I assume they had a lot of points available.

[dclfun]

The re-allocation may or may not have any impact on the cash inventory. If the inventory is available because of breakage (unreserved DVC rooms at 60 days) it may have a small impact. However, most CRO cash rooms come from member trades, and any unsold inventory DVD may have. They could have a lot of OKW/SSR inventory because of ROFR, and any unsold points/undeclared units in the SSR treehouse addition.

I know for several trips to OKW they were poushing add-ons at OKW through phoine calls, so I assume they had a lot of points available.

Yikes...I forgot about member trades- it just seems that all the unused inventory is at OKW/SSR- remember a few years back when guests who booked FD at the value resorts got free upgrades to 1 bedroom and studio villas at SSR/OKW? Then the offers for BB promos almost always are at a larger percentage of a discount at those two resorts. It feels then as those two resort properties are devalued. I didn't realize they were pushing add-ons at OKW either- if they are, then you're right- must have alot of inventory from ROFR's. I had wondered how much inventory was from breakage, although you'd think that inventory couldn't be offered until 60 days prior either- seems like there's much more out there available for cash ressies.---Kathy

[DisFlan]

I figured out that the lower weekend points will enable me to just about "walk" reservations for 2 weekend nights for the VB BC when I couldn't do so before. I would have to get rid of Friday night on the next day, but I could do it. If for me, than for others, and this brings me to my former objection with the new booking system for day of arrival. Has anyone else found they can do that now/not before? I'm writing another letter to MS, I know that some don't agree with me, but I do not think that walking should be allowed. There should be some restrictions other than the number of points a member has. I am much more disturbed by walking than the point chart adjustment.

Bobbi:)

I don't like walking either, Bobbi, but I'm afraid if too many of us complain about it, we'll get another "member requested enchancement" of some kind. Like a fee to change reservations - or some other kind of restriction. Heck, we might get it anyway.

I've legitimately changed our dates and it may have looked like walking to someone else (it wasn't). We had to shift our plans by a few days. I'd hate to not have this flexibility - or have to pay for it.

DisFlan

[bookwormde]

Just got a call from Joy (member satisfaction), as always she was very nice and took notes as to my thoughts.

I tried to focus on the following issues

Transparency and honest communication with the members

Supply point-balancing information (point calculations for each resort)

Giving adequate lead-time not just for MS needs but also for longer term planning needs of members.

Issue with BLT sales and BLT POS wording requiring changing the point charts every year to comply.

More disclosure on reasons behind the needed change, alternates that were in the members interests and reasons for the nature of the final change and how it is in the members best interests and any efforts to lessen the impact of the change through other methods.

Impact on the value of the franchise from perceived lack of candor and the lack of accurate and complete information about the change process. Also my belief that a significant reduction in member satisfaction would show up in independent polls in the next few quarters.

Although my letter did not cover this I also discussed the wait list issue including

Same items as above plus

IT issue and ms workload would not be an issue if IT was adequately supported and competent.

How providing preference for 1st choice and an additional waitlist hierarchy should be easily addressed by effective IT

Addressed the issued or not being able to group waitlist requests (like any 2br BCV or SV AKV studio etc and how with proper IT system this would be simple.

Discussed how members appreciated call from the satisfaction team but since management keeps handling communication and changes in the same poor manner that the impact of concerns did not seem to have much weight.

I would guess that the call was 15-20 minute and was 8 days from the email date.

bookwormde

[jekjones1558]

I've legitimately changed our dates and it may have looked like walking to someone else (it wasn't). We had to shift our plans by a few days. I'd hate to not have this flexibility - or have to pay for it.

I have the same concern. When we book hard to get reservations at BWV I have sometimes booked a longer stay than I ended up needing. The 330 rule for airlines means that I have to take a guess about when the cheapest days will be for flying. Sometimes the difference can be hundreds of dollars or much better flight times so I have dropped a day or 2. We have also needed to adjust our dates for medical reasons. I admit that having extra points gives me an advantage in this regard, but that is part of the reason that we bought extra points! I do always cancel as soon as I am sure that we will not need the days, in order to allow others to book those days.

[WilsonFlyer]

<Bob puts on his DUMB hat>

What's "walking"? Before someone explains putting one foot in front of the other, I know what that kind of walking is. :rotfl2:

I'm talking about relative to reservations in a timeshare as noted above.

Thanks.

[hakepb]

<Bob puts on his DUMB hat>

What's "walking"? Before someone explains putting one foot in front of the other, I know what that kind of walking is. :rotfl2:

I'm talking about relative to reservations in a timeshare as noted above.

Thanks.

Start booking earlier than you need at the exact 11+7 window, then add days until you get the dates you really want, then cancel the earlier days you do not need.

If you get your first 7 days at the 11+7 window (in say room 101), then you are guaranteed your longer stay if you add day by day. People that call the next day might get (say room 102) for your days 2-8 but no one else can start their trip in your room...

You might be able to walk by adding a day, then cancelling a day, but too many might get your account tagged as commercial (20 cancellations in a year)...

[Buckalew11]

I'm not happy with the new points system. :( My trip this year cost me 110 pts. Next year, 125. I had not even looked at 2010 points until last night when I was thinking of booking for 2010.
I was surprised. I'm thinking of booking at BCV now and then switching to BWV, if possible, at 7 months to save some points. I'm not sure what I'll do.

[DVCDebb]

When we bought into OKW we were promised that if points per week increased we would be given the points to compensate for adjustments. Needless to say now short for the normal trips and wish we had never extended membership the extra 15 years. Seem they forgot to tell us what they were doing to those of us that helped build DVC up to all our friends and families. Haven't heard anything on this to those of us loyal to Disney.

[Dean]

Sounds like a whole lot of wishing and hoping on DVCs part to me,"someone who will very possibly";)No, just explaining how this will work for a segment of the membership that is only doing S-F and that's all the points they have. EVERY shift from weekday to weekend or vice versa will also shift usage, the question is how much and is it enough or too much. ARDA and many points based timeshares have a lot of info to back that approach up. DVC also has the added advantage of a host of info from Disney's resort system.

Exactly the same. I don't care how cheap they make end of Aug / early Sept, I'm not going to Florida at that time of year.But someone will else they'd have to close the resort down for a period of time.

I'm not happy with the new points system. :( My trip this year cost me 110 pts. Next year, 125. I had not even looked at 2010 points until last night when I was thinking of booking for 2010.
I was surprised. I'm thinking of booking at BCV now and then switching to BWV, if possible, at 7 months to save some points. I'm not sure what I'll do.It's doubtful BWV standard view will be available. It's likely AKV standard, OKW & SSR will be your best cheaper options.

When we bought into OKW we were promised that if points per week increased we would be given the points to compensate for adjustments. Needless to say now short for the normal trips and wish we had never extended membership the extra 15 years. Seem they forgot to tell us what they were doing to those of us that helped build DVC up to all our friends and families. Haven't heard anything on this to those of us loyal to Disney.That would be a very unusual promise and I hope you have it in writing and signed by a supervisor.

[WolfpackFan]

My trip this year cost me 110 pts. Next year, 125.

Sounds just like our situation. We always go to HHI the first week of June and stay in a 1BR. Our stays have been costing us 110 pts., but from now on they will cost 125 pts. Our plans are to make our 11 month ressie for a Studio which takes 65 pts. and then hopefully switch to a 1BR at 7 months using either our VWL or AKV pts. If we can't do it then I'll start backing up weeks until we can get the 1BR. If no luck, we'll just stay in the Studio. What gets me is that all this was done to supposedly reduce the pts. for Friday and Saturday nights. But at HHI, those points are still ridiculously high. Oddly enough, the Studio pts. didn't change that much, it was mainly the 1BR pts. Also, the 2BR's are not that many more pts. than the 1BR's now. It might be that we take a 2BR and waste the extra bedroom. But you do what you have to do.

[TisBit]

Maybe, but I think you missed my point which was for the reasoning that DVC gave for changing the points - you have to read what I was commenting to, which was that they lowered the weekend points so that more people would want to stay the weekend nights. I was saying that the people who like to go Sun-Thurs, because it fits their vacation preference (traveling on the weekends, etc) will not necessarily be adding the weekend nights TOO , etc. etc., just because they lowered the points. Those who already go on weekends are benefitted because their typical stay has been lowered.

Yes, those who spend less points for the time they usually stay might add a night (a trip?? - that would be a substantial savings), but I'm sure for some of those there will still be banking and borrowing to add the extra night or vacation. By the same token, those who are negatively affected will also find a way to bank and borrow to adjust.

No, I understood what the point was. But understand that the point is that if some lessen due to increase in point costs (most by only 2-10 points per vacation) many will add if it only means a few extra points then what they used to do.

I don't believe that they did this to encourage Sun-Thurs people to stay the weekend, but rather to increase weekend stays, which might be from Sun-Thurs people or people that typically go weekends. I know that I am more likely to stay a an extra weekend night now that the points don't "break the bank".

Majority of people in America actually work Mon-Fri jobs and are more likely to stay a weekend on vacation. While I am not one of those people (I work in law enforcement) my wife is and our vacations are usually from one weekend to another, before we would leave sun and come back saturday to save some points...I am more likely to do Sat to Sat now.

In the same sense, all the people here on the Dis that rent a room on cash to save points might rethink that theory, because the cost benefit is different now.

[SuzanneSLO]

Originally Posted by Buckalew11
I'm not happy with the new points system. My trip this year cost me 110 pts. Next year, 125. I had not even looked at 2010 points until last night when I was thinking of booking for 2010.
I was surprised. I'm thinking of booking at BCV now and then switching to BWV, if possible, at 7 months to save some points. I'm not sure what I'll do.



It's doubtful BWV standard view will be available. It's likely AKV standard, OKW & SSR will be your best cheaper options.

One interesting thing about the reallocatio is that for certain room sizes during certain Seasons, even BW view rooms are cheaper than a similar sized rooms at BCV (and vice-versa). There are a lot fewer "no brainer" WL options among BCV, BWV and VWL where the points are exactly the same, so there is no risk of ending up with holding points. -- Suzanne

[Sammie]

Start booking earlier than you need at the exact 11+7 window, then add days until you get the dates you really want, then cancel the earlier days you do not need.

If you get your first 7 days at the 11+7 window (in say room 101), then you are guaranteed your longer stay if you add day by day. People that call the next day might get (say room 102) for your days 2-8 but no one else can start their trip in your room...

You might be able to walk by adding a day, then cancelling a day, but too many might get your account tagged as commercial (20 cancellations in a year)...


I really do not see where this makes a difference, I guess I truly am missing something with "walking", because to me it seems all you are doing is making a reservation you don't really want or need; and then trying to get what you want; but see no reason having the one you don't need improves your chances of getting what you want.

I mean it still has to be available. :confused3

[Mississippian]

I really do not see where this makes a difference, I guess I truly am missing something with "walking", because to me it seems all you are doing is making a reservation you don't really want or need; and then trying to get what you want; but see no reason having the one you don't need improves your chances of getting what you want.

I mean it still has to be available. :confused3
Sammie,

You may now make a reservation 11 months and six days ahead of your visit, instead of the old 11-month window. Under the old system, people were calling day by day. Now you can call once and get your reservation for the entire week.

The problem is that it is now possible for some dates to NEVER be available at the 11-month mark. They will be booked by people arriving a day or two earlier and will be completely unavailable when the first day to book on that particular dates comes around.

You are far more likely to get availability by "walking" than you are if you just wait until your desired reservation day arrives and book.

[dcfromva]

Anytime they are forced to turn-away potential guests due to lack of availability on weekdays--while weekend rooms sit empty--there is a problem.


Where is your data that supports weekend rooms go empty?

I would be willing to give you that weeknights book up before weekends, but I do not believe weekends go empty. It just doesn't mirror my experience with making reservations. I'd say 95% of of our stays include a least one weekend night. Anecdotal, yes, but I'm sitting on the W-L again for another Fri/Sat stay. :sad:

[tjkraz]

Where is your data that supports weekend rooms go empty?


Unless you're accusing DVC of violating Florida law, we need look no further than the reallocation itself. The only justification for reallocating is to balance demand. If demand for weekends was equal to weekdays, none of this would have happened.

[dcfromva]

Unless you're accusing DVC of violating Florida law, we need look no further than the reallocation itself.
I am not familar with Fl law, perhaps you could point me to the statue to which you are referring?

The only justification for reallocating is to balance demand. If demand for weekends was equal to weekdays, none of this would have happened.
I believe it has already been pointed out before that the language states "seasonal demand" Weekend to weekday changes do not suggest "seasonal" to me.
As I said before, I would be willing to give you that weeknights might book up prior to weekends, but empty --that is a far reach to make such a conclusion.

[tjkraz]

I am not familar with Fl law, perhaps you could point me to the statue to which you are referring?

It's been quoted in this thread at least a dozen times by Dean, myself and others. I'm not going to go search for it right now.

It states that the timeshare manager retains the right to reallocate the points in response to member demand.

I believe it has already been pointed out before that the language states "seasonal demand" Weekend to weekday changes do not suggest "seasonal" to me.
As I said before, I would be willing to give you that weeknights might book up prior to weekends, but empty --that is a far reach to make such a conclusion.

If I used the word "empty" it was hyperbole. Of course the resorts are not completely empty. But even if they are at 95% average on weekdays and 80% weekends (hypothetical), demand is still out of balance.

I think it is obvious that weekend levels are lower than weekdays under the current point structure. The volume of guests arriving on Sundays and departing on Fridays is very apparent to any resort guest. The 25% member cash discount is easy to obtain.

Whatever occupancy level the resorts are able to reach on weekends is also propped-up by the 25% discount bookings and rooms booked thru CRO under the breakage rules. The rooms should be full of members using their points--not cash-paying guests getting a deal.

[aurorafan]

Not to mention that the cost to buy in at lower point structure allowed them to significantly raise the price per point. Lets just say there is a breakeven point of where most feel comfortable spending on a timeshare. If that number is 20,000 then people who bought back in the days of 230 minimum at 52.00 a point only spent around 12,000 so they could easily by the minimum and more. Now a person who wants to buy a 160 point contract will need to spend close 18,000 for 30% less points. Now for a family to do the point structure that allows a good minimum (lets say 230 again) it would cost 26,000. So the owners who are advocating a minimum buy in that was higher have a great point that it would allow the system to work better, however the price per point has gone up to a point that make it difficult to get new buyers to buy in with that many points (this also benefits the older buyers as well as the value of their 230 points has gone up).


I definitely see the value to the system of having a higher minimum point buy-in, but I agree with the above statement in that DH and I wouldn't have been able to buy in if there had been a 230 pt. (or thereabouts) minimum at the current price per point. Our comfort level was definitely $20,000 as a max, preferably less, which is what we ended up with (160 pts. at $101/pt. minus the $8/pt. incentive).

We are one of the people Chuck (or Dean? can't keep track at this point sorry!) are saying Disney was hoping for with the "smaller" buy-ins though. We always knew we'd add on as soon as we paid off our current contract ;).

[aurorafan]

One thing that I really don't get, however, are those who plan to verbalize their disgust for DVC at the parks, to your friends, and to anyone else who will listen. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would you follow a potential buyer around your home pointing out the non-existent closet space, the outdated kitchen cabinets, the tacky wallpaper in the den, or the overall feeling of gloom associated with the upstairs bedroom where Grandpa Bernie was found frozen last winter? I'm just curious.


:lmao: :rotfl: Okay, I just had to post and say thank you for the laugh this morning! It is especially amusing to us as we have several of those issues in our house (although not the bedroom with the frozen relative :rotfl2: )

[aurorafan]

I say that only as it applies to what we were told - "locking in to today's prices for tomorrow". It should still apply to all members using their points the way they have been.

No matter how you look at it, if a member has been booking Sun. to Thurs., their "prices" just went up for the same stay - which goes against what was implied.

If they had left some weeks in the year with the same points, that might have been a little better - at least the Sun.-Thurs. members would have some options at "yesterday's" prices.

Obviously, this is JMO.

The way I looked at it (and I could be completely off base here) was not that I could always get the same room at the same time of year for the same amount of days at "today's prices", but rather that what I could get in the future would still cost me less than what people going through CRO at that time would be paying. So I would be using points bought at today's prices while they'd be paying whatever the current rate would be at that time. Does that make sense?

[aurorafan]

condescending is the responses that r being given particularly as to the BLT situation re add on points. especially now that those short due to new allocation would be forced to purchase another 100 pts in order to make it work or curtail the plans they so carefully crafted:sad2:. Never did i think i would be happy about deciding not to add on there.

I respectfully have to disagree with you here--I'm on page 126 of this thread, and so far even the people who say they have no sympathy for most of the situations are still saying they understand and/or agree with those who are upset over the BLT fiasco.

I personally think they should allow (as others have mentioned) those who already own BLT to get the minimum add-ons of 25 pts. to help alleviate the situation they now find themselves in. I think Tim is right--had they released this a couple of weeks ago before upping the add-on minimum, they would have seen sales increase a bit as those who found themselves short a few points amended their contracts to buy a few points more.

It was badly handled all around, and while I see the need for the reallocation (and will benefit sometimes from it) it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.

[SuzanneSLO]

I really do not see where this makes a difference, I guess I truly am missing something with "walking", because to me it seems all you are doing is making a reservation you don't really want or need; and then trying to get what you want; but see no reason having the one you don't need improves your chances of getting what you want.

I mean it still has to be available. :confused3

Walking works when you book at the 11 month window plus additional days for which the 11 month has not yet opened. To understand, assume you book AKV concierge room 6401 11 months prior to Day 1 for Days 1 -7, but really want Days 5-11.

On Day 5, another member calls at 9 am and wants to book room 6401 for Days 5-11. They are told that there is no availability for Days 5 & 6 becuase you have already booked it. Days 7-11 are available, but the other member cannot book them because you cannot book within the 11 month window unless you have a continuous reservation; i.e., you must book Days 5 and 6 to be allowed to book 7 -11. The other member can WL day 5 but must call back the next day to see if Day 6 becomes available.

You call on Day 5 and want to book Days 7-11. Since you already have a reservation for Days 5 & 6, you are allowed to book Days 7-11 and can cancel Days 1-4 to free up points to do so.

This is how walking a reservation actually creates availability for days not yet at the 11 month window.

I personally have not problem with walking; members book reservations they do not use all the time. I much prefer members cancelling unneeded dates close to 11 months out rather than close to 30 days. -- Suzanne

[DVC92]

Unless you're accusing DVC of violating Florida law, we need look no further than the reallocation itself. The only justification for reallocating is to balance demand. If demand for weekends was equal to weekdays, none of this would have happened.

As I previously pointed out, there is nothing in the Fl. law that mandates reallocation for the purpose of balancing. It is a discretionary power of DVC.

Further, to state that none of this would have happened absent equal demand is making an assumption without factual support. We do not know why the reallocation took place. It could be for balancing, or it could simply be to make a few more dollars. Unless a transcript of some internal meeting turns up, we simply are not privy to the real reason.

[BWV Dreamin]

As I previously pointed out, there is nothing in the Fl. law that mandates reallocation for the purpose of balancing. It is a discretionary power of DVC.

Further, to state that none of this would have happened absent equal demand is making an assumption without factual support. We do not know why the reallocation took place. It could be for balancing, or it could simply be to make a few more dollars. Unless a transcript of some internal meeting turns up, we simply are not privy to the real reason.
I also agree here. There are many assumptions being made. Since this "imbalance" has existed for some time, I feel there are other motives involved for this move ( like money).

[tjkraz]

As I previously pointed out, there is nothing in the Fl. law that mandates reallocation for the purpose of balancing. It is a discretionary power of DVC.

Further, to state that none of this would have happened absent equal demand is making an assumption without factual support. We do not know why the reallocation took place. It could be for balancing, or it could simply be to make a few more dollars. Unless a transcript of some internal meeting turns up, we simply are not privy to the real reason.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me (bold text is my own, of course):

Prior to offering the multisite timeshare plan, the developer shall create the reservation system and shall establish rules and regulations for its operation. In establishing these rules and regulations, the developer shall take into account the location and anticipated relative use demand of each component site that he or she intends to offer as a part of the plan and shall use his or her best efforts, in good faith and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to further the best interests of the purchasers of the plan as a whole with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the accommodations and facilities of the plan. The rules and regulations shall also provide for periodic adjustment or amendment of the reservation system by the managing entity from time to time in order to respond to actual purchaser use patterns and changes in purchaser use demand for the accommodations and facilities existing at that time within the plan.

http://www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0721/SEC56.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0721-%3ESection%2056#0721.56

I don't see anything in the statute which gives the timeshare manager (the developer is a separate entity) the right to reallocate on a whim or "to make a few dollars."

If you want to disagree and keep playing the "where is your evidence" game, so be it. But so far I have yet to any proof to support your argument, either. While sales may benefit in some ways, they will undoubtedly suffer in others. And I think Disney has much to lose in terms of reduced breakage bookings due to higher weekend occupancy.

[DVC92]

I don't see anything in the statute which gives the timeshare manager (the developer is a separate entity) the right to reallocate on a whim or "to make a few dollars."

If you want to disagree and keep playing the "where is your evidence" game, so be it. But so far I have yet to any proof to support your argument, either. While sales may benefit in some ways, they will undoubtedly suffer in others. And I think Disney has much to lose in terms of reduced breakage bookings due to higher weekend occupancy.

It is still a discretionary power of DVC to reallocate. The statute merely forced inclusion of a regulation to empower the managing entity to reallocate.

I also never claimed to have any evidence to support the reallocation was done for the purpose of making money. I have said we don't know. There is no evidence to support any conclusion.

[BWV Dreamin]

It is still a discretionary power of DVC to reallocate. The statute merely forced inclusion of a regulation to empower the managing entity to reallocate.

I also never claimed to have any evidence to support the reallocation was done for the purpose of making money. I have said we don't know. There is no evidence to support any conclusion.
No you didn't.....I am the one who thinks they did it for money!! We don't even know if Disney lost ANY sales due to this change. We all really know NOTHING! One constant is that Disney is hurting....big, big, time. They need to generate revenue, how ever the vehicle.

[Chuck S]

Actually, it really isn't all that "discretionary". It says they SHALL, not that they may at their discretion. Shall = must, not "if they want to."

[dd08]

:confused3 No you didn't.....I am the one who thinks they did it for money!! We don't even know if Disney lost ANY sales due to this change. We all really know NOTHING! One constant is that Disney is hurting....big, big, time. They need to generate revenue, how ever the vehicle.

I shouldn't be getting into this, and in today's world I understand why people are jaded.....

But, how do you see this as a move "to generate revenue?"

I know the popular, yet completely unfounded opinion on this thread is that they did it to sell add-ons, however.....

Most resorts are sold. GCV (which is and would have sold quickly anyways), AKV (which is probably mostly sold), THV (which isn't THAT many more points) and BLT are the only truly active ones.

DVC/D can't just generate new add-on contracts for BWV, OKW, BCV, etc as these resorts are already sold out.

In regards to the new resorts that aren't sold, the total number of points aren't increasing so therefore they aren't going to sell "more" or generate more revenue from this.

The ONLY thing IMO, that could be questioned is why BLT is the solitary resort that requires a minimum of 100 points to add-on.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just dont' see how this is was done "to generate more revenue" :confused3

BTW - don't take it personally, I've asked this question to other people who have said this and have yet to receive a response to my recollection. Just wondering what (if??) I'm missing

[BWV Dreamin]

:confused3

I shouldn't be getting into this, and in today's world I understand why people are jaded.....

But, how do you see this as a move "to generate revenue?"

I know the popular, yet completely unfounded opinion on this thread is that they did it to sell add-ons, however.....

Most resorts are sold. GCV (which is and would have sold quickly anyways), AKV (which is probably mostly sold), THV (which isn't THAT many more points) and BLT are the only truly active ones.

DVC/D can't just generate new add-on contracts for BWV, OKW, BCV, etc as these resorts are already sold out.

In regards to the new resorts that aren't sold, the total number of points aren't increasing so therefore they aren't going to sell "more" or generate more revenue from this.

The ONLY thing IMO, that could be questioned is why BLT is the solitary resort that requires a minimum of 100 points to add-on.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just dont' see how this is was done "to generate more revenue" :confused3

BTW - don't take it personally, I've asked this question to other people who have said this and have yet to receive a response to my recollection. Just wondering what (if??) I'm missing
Hey, I'm all about discussion!:goodvibes Well, lets just first state that no resort is "truely" sold out. Again, we have no figures, but you can still ask to purchase sold out resorts. If one must waitlist for them, Disney will simply ROFR some on the resale market, and make profit on the waitlist sale. Many, many BLT posters have already stated they would purchase more points if it was under the 100 pt. minimum. So with time, they will eventually add-on or look for BLT resale (unless Disney ROFR's the smaller contracts). Getting past the emotional "I'm never gonna add-on again" statements, eventually, to continue their desired vacation habits, they WILL add-on. Ok, so are we talking mega bucks in six months? No, but a little here, a little there, etc. will add up over time. Lets not forget future sales....now requires more points for stays. Don't know why the picked BLT for no samll add-ons. Maybe they are setting up a future precedent.

[dd08]

Hey, I'm all about discussion!:goodvibes Well, lets just first state that no resort is "truely" sold out. Again, we have no figures, but you can still ask to purchase sold out resorts. If one must waitlist for them, Disney will simply ROFR some on the resale market, and make profit on the waitlist sale.

Actually, in terms of "sold out," I meant the initial offerings so they are "sold out" yes you can buy resale via DVC or another entity.....So DVC decides to change the 2010 charts just to make a relatively small number of sales via resales? Not a good business decision and one I don't think they would have made. Especially considering that they sell the ROFR contracts they obtained at $104/point. People can still buy cheaper elsewhere......Their "bread and butter" are selling to the "new" resorts, that's why they push those and not the "small" number of contracts they have obtained via ROFR. Looking at it from a business perspective, I just don't see the logic here.

Many, many BLT posters have already stated they would purchase more points if it was under the 100 pt. minimum. So with time, they will eventually add-on or look for BLT resale (unless Disney ROFR's the smaller contracts). Getting past the emotional "I'm never gonna add-on again" statements, eventually, to continue their desired vacation habits, they WILL add-on. Ok, so are we talking mega bucks in six months? No, but a little here, a little there, etc. will add up over time. Lets not forget future sales....now requires more points for stays. Don't know why the picked BLT for no samll add-ons. Maybe they are setting up a future precedent.

I agree (and stated originally) that the BLT minimum is odd, but BLT is just one resort out of 4 that they are selling right now. I can add on to AKV for only 25 points, so if this point chart change was this grand master plan to get me to buy more points that I didn't "need" why not increase the minimum on AKV to 100? Just doesn't make sense. Sorry


:wave2:

Again, just discussing, not arguing, but the logic presented by people here stating this was just to increase sales doesn't appear to be valid.

[White_Sox_Fan]

We all have our opinions but I don't think that they are going to make any real money on add-on's at existing resorts. Let's say they ROFR a BCV contract for around $80.00pp. They turn around and sell you a 25 point contract for $106pp. That's only $650 gross to Disney. By the time all the paperwork gets done they probably lose money.

[BWV Dreamin]

We all have our opinions but I don't think that they are going to make any real money on add-on's at existing resorts. Let's say they ROFR a BCV contract for around $80.00pp. They turn around and sell you a 25 point contract for $106pp. That's only $650 gross to Disney. By the time all the paperwork gets done they probably lose money.
I guess the real question is just how many points does Disney sell annually? We don't have those figures....I have read though that they sell many, many more points than on the resales market. So while WE may not think there is much revenue generated, we really have no way of knowing this. Even if some revenue is added, again, in conjuction with other cost savings measures (like laying off 600 Disney excecutives), its all a culminating effect.

[tjkraz]

We all have our opinions but I don't think that they are going to make any real money on add-on's at existing resorts. Let's say they ROFR a BCV contract for around $80.00pp. They turn around and sell you a 25 point contract for $106pp. That's only $650 gross to Disney. By the time all the paperwork gets done they probably lose money.

Very true. Yes, this approach allows DVC to effectively re-sell something it already sold once. But don't ignore all of the dollars paid out to re-acquire that asset in the first place. "New" sales are far more profitable than the ROFR / re-sell game.

And I still don't see the reallocation as being driven by potential add-on sales. When you whittle down all of the people who are not going to add, you get to a pretty small market. I have a report which states that DVC finances 75% of all purchases. By and large we are not talking about a group that will collectively shrug its shoulders and commit to a 50-100 pt add-on simply to maintain their current standards. In this thread alone we've had many people state that they will reduce their trip frequency, shorter their trips by a day, book smaller rooms, take fewer family members, spent more time off-site, visit in cheaper seasons, and so on.

If there is any sales benefit to DVC, I think it comes in the form of making those small resale contracts less appealing. I think DVC is torn between accommodating member needs for small add-ons vs. the volume of those add-ons which make it to the resale market. IMHO, the sales benefit comes in that a 160-pt initial purchase now seems a lot more reasonable than buying 80-100 via resale.

If DVC were worried about the economy, IMO we would be seeing a lot more attractive incentives than we are now. The current $5 and $6.25 off are the smallest cash incentives we have ever seen. Meanwhile DVC just raised the base price an unprecedented 8% from $104 to $112. Where are the free annual passes? Where are the $500 gift cards? Nothing about the current pricing + incentives suggests that DVC is hurting for sales.

[tjkraz]

I guess the real question is just how many points does Disney sell annually?

In 2007 DVC had revenues of approximately $375 million (http://dvcnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=399&Itemid=163). Assuming that figure is based upon the $104 published rate for points, it would be about 3.6 million points in '07.

A separate source reports that DVC sales were up 18% in 2008.

Not sure what that's supposed to tell us, though... :confused3 White_Sox_Fan is right that ROFR is not a very lucrative business for DVC.

If DVC buys-back BWV at $85 and re-sells for $106, they've grossed $21 per point on the transaction. On a 25-pt contract that is $525. On 50 pts that is $1050.

Then you need to deduct closing cost x2 (first to re-acquire the points, then to re-sell) and all of the administrative overhead associated with the sale. Costs to write-up the contract, sales salaries / commission, etc.

DVC stands to make a few dollars on the largest contracts and will probably lose on the smaller ones.

[BroganMc]

Very true. Yes, this approach allows DVC to effectively re-sell something it already sold once. But don't ignore all of the dollars paid out to re-acquire that asset in the first place. "New" sales are far more profitable than the ROFR / re-sell game.

Is it anymore than the cash layout of constructing and carrying a new resort? Think about it. On a resale contract there are no construction costs. Maintenance fees have been paid by existing members until ROFR, then carried on again by new add-on buyers.

So while the price differential between ROFR and resale may only net them around $600-700 for a smaller contract, perhaps that is as much as they'd get from a new construction less startup costs. It's doubledipping for DVC with only paperwork as the overhead expense.

If DVC were worried about the economy, IMO we would be seeing a lot more attractive incentives than we are now. The current $5 and $6.25 off are the smallest cash incentives we have ever seen. Meanwhile DVC just raised the base price an unprecedented 8% from $104 to $112. Where are the free annual passes? Where are the $500 gift cards? Nothing about the current pricing + incentives suggests that DVC is hurting for sales.

To play Devil's Advocate here, there does seem to be quite a bit of "koolaid" thinking driving DVC sales of late. What with BLT opening for sale right at the beginning of the Recession bubble burst, then a rate hike and point hike. It's as if those in management are living in a reality a year outdated when sales boomed and the economy was strong. By all accounts, sales have slumped in regards to reaching their quarterly quotas. But instead of looking at the realities of the world at large, managers are concentrating on the deceptive influence of a few new sales for long-awaited resorts.

There had existed a market for BLT and VGC for years just waiting for those resorts to open. Sales Guides predicted BLT would sell out within 6 months due to all its pre-sale "blue sky" hype. Those buyers were just waiting to pull the trigger on a sale. But once they all buy, will DVC be able to stay competitive in the timeshare market? It seems that they have hung their hat solely on sales as a measure of success. So when they meet market saturation will the DVC bubble burst as well and hard reality set in for managers?

What concerns me most about the program in the last year or so is how disenfranchised the membership is becoming. Management seems to have forgotten they have entered into a partnership with owners. What happens if members lose their affection for the program and start selling off en masse? Sure DVC can handle the few resale contracts on the market now, but what if that resale tops 50% of membership? Can they keep up with ROFR on that many contracts at a profitable rate?

[BWV Dreamin]

What concerns me most about the program in the last year or so is how disenfranchised the membership is becoming. Management seems to have forgotten they have entered into a partnership with owners. What happens if members lose their affection for the program and start selling off en masse? Sure DVC can handle the few resale contracts on the market now, but what if that resale tops 50% of membership? Can they keep up with ROFR on that many contracts at a profitable rate?
What if they don't move via resales....what happens if they all just "walk away" like with housing? That could put a real big hurt on Disney. :wave2:

[tjkraz]

Is it anymore than the cash layout of constructing and carrying a new resort? Think about it. On a resale contract there are no construction costs.

The Bay Lake Tower has been cited as being a $110 million construction project. According to my quick calculations DVC will sell more than 6 million points. That makes construction costs at BLT less than $18 per point--a fraction of the +/- $85 it cost to re-acquire via ROFR in my example.


To play Devil's Advocate here, there does seem to be quite a bit of "koolaid" thinking driving DVC sales of late. What with BLT opening for sale right at the beginning of the Recession bubble burst, then a rate hike and point hike. It's as if those in management are living in a reality a year outdated when sales boomed and the economy was strong. By all accounts, sales have slumped in regards to reaching their quarterly quotas.

Who are the "all accounts" being cited here?

What concerns me most about the program in the last year or so is how disenfranchised the membership is becoming. Management seems to have forgotten they have entered into a partnership with owners. What happens if members lose their affection for the program and start selling off en masse? Sure DVC can handle the few resale contracts on the market now, but what if that resale tops 50% of membership? Can they keep up with ROFR on that many contracts at a profitable rate?

Don't delude yourself into thinking that the select opinions you read on the Internet are in any way representative of "the membership." ;) The number of DVC owners who frequent these message boards is pretty small (10% may be high) and an even smaller percentage has posted to actually share an opinion. How many people do you think have posted on this thread? Maybe 200-300? And that's out of 300,000 members...

Market Metrix performs independent quarterly customer satisfaction surveys within the hospitality industry. As of 3Q 2008 (last data published) DVC continued to be the leader in the timeshare category with a satisfaction rating over 90%. They maintained that through the banking changes (fall '07), through the glassware issues (spring '08), through the booking policy changes (summer '08), and so on.

Reading this thread it's quite apparent that some folks have had their own bubble burst by DVC. But come on--that's not exactly a new phenomenon. DVC (and Disney as a whole) has been gaining and losing customers for decades.

Will DVC's approval rating dip in the near future? Perhaps. This is a pretty big issue that will seemingly impact a lot of members. But a lot of folks got pretty worked-up over other changes in the last 2 years and DVC's approval remained steady.

No matter what business you choose--Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Marriott, General Electric, McDonald's--if you look hard enough you'll find these little pockets of disgruntled folks who think that business can do no right. I think we (and yes, I include myself) are the equivalent for DVC. We get so caught up in overanalyzing every single move that we lose sight of the big picture.

And perhaps more importantly, despite making claims that DVC has lost touch with its membership base, we should consider that WE may be the ones who have no idea what our fellow members want/need/desire. It's certainly OK to say "I don't like this change", but 50% of owners considering selling?!?! Come on, now. :)

Emotionally I was as stunned by the reallocation as anyone else. But intellectually it makes perfect sense. But DVC isn't a house or a car or a piece of land with a single owner. There is no democracy in place to vote on how it should be governed. The resorts are all shared property and DVC exists to help protect the interests of all owners--not just those of us who are ticked-off because our usage went up.

[White_Sox_Fan]

The Bay Lake Tower has been cited as being a $110 million construction project. According to my quick calculations DVC will sell more than 6 million points. That makes construction costs at BLT less than $18 per point--a fraction of the +/- $85 it cost to re-acquire via ROFR in my example.

I wonder if that is the $110M construction cost includes all the fit out. The furnishings, artwork, decorations, appliances, TV's, utensils, cookware, etc. I think the final total for all this work would be more than $110M.

I also wonder how much Disney spend on marketing, sales, etc.

[DVC92]

Actually, it really isn't all that "discretionary". It says they SHALL, not that they may at their discretion. Shall = must, not "if they want to."

In my POS, it specifically states that "In order to meet the clubs members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in use day demand at a given DVC resort experienced by DVC during a given calendar year, DVC may in its sole DISCRETION increase or decrease the vacation point requirement for a given use day...." It goes on to say that the right to reallocate is reserved solely for adjusting the reservation system to accommodate member demand. Thus, the adjustment is a discretionary right and the only reason DVC can legally give to support the adjustment is predicated on balancing, whether it is true or not.

[Chuck S]

In my POS, it specifically states that "In order to meet the clubs members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in use day demand at a given DVC resort experienced by DVC during a given calendar year, DVC may in its sole DISCRETION increase or decrease the vacation point requirement for a given use day...." It goes on to say that the right to reallocate is reserved solely for adjusting the reservation system to accommodate member demand. Thus, the adjustment is a discretionary right and the only reason DVC can legally give to support the adjustment is predicated on balancing, whether it is true or not.

The POS says DVC has the right to do it, Florida Timeshare law says it SHALL (must) be done. State law trumps POS.

[DVC92]

The POS says DVC has the right to do it, Florida Timeshare law says it SHALL (must) be done. State law trumps POS.

DVC complied with the Fl. statute by providing a regulation to make the adjustment at whatever time they deemed necessary and within their sole discretion. When, and if, they make such an adjustment is clearly within their discretion. You may argue they failed to comply with the Fl. law, but the state of Florida approved their regulation for handling an adjustment.

[White_Sox_Fan]

I'm actually going to agree with DVC92 on this one. The statute, which has been referred to several times, states:

Prior to offering the multisite timeshare plan, the developer shall create the reservation system and shall establish rules and regulations for its operation. In establishing these rules and regulations, the developer shall take into account the location and anticipated relative use demand of each component site that he or she intends to offer as a part of the plan and shall use his or her best efforts, in good faith and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to further the best interests of the purchasers of the plan as a whole with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the accommodations and facilities of the plan. The rules and regulations shall also provide for periodic adjustment or amendment of the reservation system by the managing entity from time to time in order to respond to actual purchaser use patterns and changes in purchaser use demand for the accommodations and facilities existing at that time within the plan. The person authorized to make additions and substitutions during the term of the multisite timeshare plan shall also comply with the requirements of this subsection in ascertaining the desirability of the proposed addition, substitution, adjustment, or amendment and the impact of same upon the demand for and availability of existing plan accommodations and facilities.

All the statute says is that the rules shall allow for readjustment from time to time. Obviously the DVC POS does allow for this readjustment which they have chosen to implement.

I still believe that this was a necessary move that will better the membership as a whole.

[T-i-double-g-err]

DELETED - Not sure it really said what I thought it did... My bad. :blush:

[drusba]

Can't believe ROFR is looked as a significant source of profit. Undoubtedly some, but my impression has always been that ROFR has been used mainly to make sure the price does not become too low. If it was highly profitable, you would see them doing ROFR far more frequently than they have. Also, I do not look at the current changes as being intentionally done to generate more sales even at BLT or AKV and now SSR, for which they are still selling new points. I suspect they really did the change under a belief that they needed to decrease demand for weekdays and hopefully raise it for weekends somewhat. They will accomplish at least the former because those who bought enough only for Sun through Thurs night trips will now simply not be able to book as many days/trips as they used to be able to book, and even many who bought more points than that are going to be giving up some days somewhere because of higher point costs -- example: even those who had enough points to do the 12 night trip, arrive on Sunday and leave on a Friday with one weekend in between will find themselves losing a day without more points .

However, I also believe that they did not think through all the issues. The assumption made that Disney does so and has lawyers who must have been advising them on everything is something that very often does not occur in big corporations. Sure their lawyers were involved, and, knowing what really occurs, those lawyers told them they could probably make the change but also noted there were some risks (that quite frankly is the usual opinion given by in-house lawyers on almost anything) and the particular lawyers involved may have been looking at the point chart change without looking at or even knowing of everything else, such as the the planned move to raise the minimum add-on at BLT to 100. Where I feel they dropped the ball is focusing on whether they can do the change while overlooking some particular issues. The main one I see is BLT. They should have had the initial point chart be what the 2010 chart is now if the change was coming. To sell to those purchasers under the impression that no change was close to being made is an oversight that amounts to being misleading. The POS (and the statute) speaks to making a change based on the actual reservation experience Disney has had at a resort and for BLT there was none so management dropped the ball there. Then the ultimate of "I really forgot to think this through" move came when they raised the minimum add-on for BLT to 100 points just before announcing the point chart change; that is management acting thoughtlessly, unless you want to believe that DVD really sat down and said "Let's see how we can really screw the BLT purchasers." I do not look it as they planned this out to do harm to owners but instead as a series of acts where they missed a few key points (and I have been involved in matters with Fortune 500 corporations enough times to know this occurs far more often than people may believe and Disney is not immune).

It will be interesting to see what they do now on the issue. For example, they could alleviate their mistake by doing something like allowing BLT buyers to add-on 10 point minimums if they bought before the announced change. However, I suspect they will do what many corporations do when they have acted poorly -- dig in their heels and assert they did nothing wrong. That itself often occurs because to do otherwise means someone in upper mangement has to admit to an error and that is too often impossible for them to do.

[toocherie]

Can't believe ROFR is looked as a significant source of profit. Undoubtedly some, but my impression has always been that ROFR has been used mainly to make sure the price does not become too low. If it was highly profitable, you would see them doing ROFR far more frequently than they have. Also, I do not look at the current changes as being intentionally done to generate more sales even at BLT or AKV and now SSR, for which they are still selling new points. I suspect they really did the change under a belief that they needed to decrease demand for weekdays and hopefully raise it for weekends somewhat. They will accomplish at least the former because those who bought enough only for Sun through Thurs night trips will now simply not be able to book as many days/trips as they used to be able to book, and even many who bought more points than that are going to be giving up some days somewhere because of higher point costs -- example: even those who had enough points to do the 12 night trip, arrive on Sunday and leave on a Friday with one weekend in between will find themselves losing a day without more points .

However, I also believe that they did not think through all the issues. The assumption made that Disney does so and has lawyers who must have been advising them on everything is something that very often does not occur in big corporations. Sure their lawyers were involved, and, knowing what really occurs, those lawyers told them they could probably make the change but also noted there were some risks (that quite frankly is the usual opinion given by in-house lawyers on almost anything) and the particular lawyers involved may have been looking at the point chart change without looking at or even knowing of everything else, such as the the planned move to raise the minimum add-on at BLT to 100. Where I feel they dropped the ball is focusing on whether they can do the change while overlooking some particular issues. The main one I see is BLT. They should have had the initial point chart be what the 2010 chart is now if the change was coming. To sell to those purchasers under the impression that no change was close to being made is an oversight that amounts to being misleading. The POS (and the statute) speaks to making a change based on the actual reservation experience Disney has had at a resort and for BLT there was none so management dropped the ball there. Then the ultimate of "I really forgot to think this through" move came when they raised the minimum add-on for BLT to 100 points just before announcing the point chart change; that is management acting thoughtlessly, unless you want to believe that DVD really sat down and said "Let's see how we can really screw the BLT purchasers." I do not look it as they planned this out to do harm to owners but instead as a series of acts where they missed a few key points (and I have been involved in matters with Fortune 500 corporations enough times to know this occurs far more often than people may believe and Disney is not immune).

It will be interesting to see what they do now on the issue. For example, they could alleviate their mistake by doing something like allowing BLT buyers to add-on 10 point minimums if they bought before the announced change. However, I suspect they will do what many corporations do when they have acted poorly -- dig in their heels and assert they did nothing wrong. That itself often occurs because to do otherwise means someone in upper mangement has to admit to an error and that is too often impossible for them to do.

Having been in-house counsel for a major corporation I totally agree with you--most decisions are made on the basis of "can this come back and bite me in the rear?"--answers are oftentimes equivocal and a lot of opinions are made in a vacuum. I'm sure that the question went out to the legal department--can we change the point structure? and the answer that came back (with the appopriate memo) was yes, citing the provisions in the POS and--if the lawyer was really on his/her game, the applicable Florida statutes that required the changes. However, it was probably a different counsel who answered the question about whether the BLT points could be increased to 100 minimum and probably a third who was consulted about the increase in point cost. Personally, if I were advising Disney and knew all the BLT facts I would also on the QT agree to let a BLT owner increase the number of points below 100--in the long run it will save DVC money and maybe preserve what goodwill is left for that member who now feels like they've been taken.

[LIFERBABE]

The assumption made that Disney does so and has lawyers who must have been advising them on everything is something that very often does not occur in big corporations. Sure their lawyers were involved, and, knowing what really occurs, those lawyers told them they could probably make the change but also noted there were some risks (that quite frankly is the usual opinion given by in-house lawyers on almost anything) and the particular lawyers involved may have been looking at the point chart change without looking at or even knowing of everything else, such as the the planned move to raise the minimum add-on at BLT to 100. Where I feel they dropped the ball is focusing on whether they can do the change while overlooking some particular issues. The main one I see is BLT. They should have had the initial point chart be what the 2010 chart is now if the change was coming. To sell to those purchasers under the impression that no change was close to being made is an oversight that amounts to being misleading.

I agree also.
To say they considered all the facts relative to the case is a huge assumption. Jim Lewis admitted that they handled the OKW extension wrong, despite having all this "wisdom".
A few other things they handled wrong also or flat out lied about. To say that because they have this army of lawyers on their side who should have advised them of all aspects, and that they are infallible or within their right is wrong.
Someone knew all the facts and decided it was worth the risk to proceed. Doesn't mean they were right.

[Dean]

It is still a discretionary power of DVC to reallocate. The statute merely forced inclusion of a regulation to empower the managing entity to reallocate.

I also never claimed to have any evidence to support the reallocation was done for the purpose of making money. I have said we don't know. There is no evidence to support any conclusion.There is other language that states in essence they must manage DVC for the benefit of the members as a whole. And there is a lot of evidence to suggest weekends were out of balance and becoming more so. As I've said on this thread before, if I truly though the reasons were manipulative and mostly money oriented, I'd be out of here.

DVC makes little money on resale points other than as it keeps prices up and those points compete with a sale out of their active selling resorts.

To play Devil's Advocate here, there does seem to be quite a bit of "koolaid" thinking driving DVC sales of late.Without Koolade this site, DVC and likely Disney itself would not exist. It's interesting what happens when some have their Mickey glasses removed and then go overboard much like a reformed addict.

[dclfun]

{/QUOTE}What concerns me most about the program in the last year or so is how disenfranchised the membership is becoming. Management seems to have forgotten they have entered into a partnership with owners. What happens if members lose their affection for the program and start selling off en masse? Sure DVC can handle the few resale contracts on the market now, but what if that resale tops 50% of membership? Can they keep up with ROFR on that many contracts at a profitable rate?[/QUOTE]

I'm not happy with some of the changes, but then I've been a member for a long time and remember the "good old days". I recall the huge outpouring of angst when the free passes expired and many people threatened to sell their memberships, but new members kept joining and I doubt many people actually sold, although I have no data or evidence to support that. Lots of us "oldtimers" are the ones disenfranchised, but the newcomers are not. Many of us bought when our children were young-the youngest of my four was 9 years old- now he's 22. My "kids" are looking forward to sharing DVC with their young families and don't remember much of what I do- they're just glad to have the feeling of continuity and a Disney home away from home to use with their families for years to come. I intend to share and pass my membership on to them, and they aren't burdened by my memories, lol. So it's all in the eye of the beholder, based on your own past experience. For the posters who have said that besides looking at the financial implications of purchasing our memberships, for many of us it was also an emotional decision based on the "feeling" we get from being a part of Disney. I just don't see people becoming so disenfranchised en masse that there will be a huge sell-off. There will always be new young and excited members anxious to share a legacy with their children/families and seeing the value of DVC.----Kathy

[littlestar]

If DVC were worried about the economy, IMO we would be seeing a lot more attractive incentives than we are now. The current $5 and $6.25 off are the smallest cash incentives we have ever seen. Meanwhile DVC just raised the base price an unprecedented 8% from $104 to $112. Where are the free annual passes? Where are the $500 gift cards? Nothing about the current pricing + incentives suggests that DVC is hurting for sales.

2009 should be interesting. Take a look at this article. I don't think they would be offering the free cruises for add-ons if the economy wasn't an issue:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a32aa9a2-f246-11dd-9678-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Personally, I'm optimistic and I'm trying to buy some more SSR points resale at a bargain. I haven't been happy with DVC's communication skills here lately (late in getting info on point charts) but my last visit to SSR a few weeks ago cemented why I bought DVC in the first place: I enjoy staying at the DVC resorts on property and feel I can get value out of owning DVC points to accomplish that. Even with the point changes, I still feel I can get value out of owning DVC.

[BWV Dreamin]

2009 should be interesting. Take a look at this article. I don't think they would be offering the free cruises for add-ons if the economy wasn't an issue:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a32aa9a2-f246-11dd-9678-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

I read this article in it's entirety. It's not pretty. Just confirms my staement that disney is really hurting.

[toocherie]

sorry--read the article after I posted--I was referencing the same thing.

[dcfromva]

If DVC were worried about the economy, IMO we would be seeing a lot more attractive incentives than we are now. The current $5 and $6.25 off are the smallest cash incentives we have ever seen. Meanwhile DVC just raised the base price an unprecedented 8% from $104 to $112. Where are the free annual passes? Where are the $500 gift cards? Nothing about the current pricing + incentives suggests that DVC is hurting for sales.


Walt Disney Co. profits dropped 32 percent at close of 2008
Jason Garcia | Sentinel Staff Writer
4:38 PM EST, February 3, 2009
Profits at the Walt Disney Co. fell 32 percent during the final three months of 2008, dragged down by falling DVD sales, weakened advertising revenue, and lower attendance at its theme parks.

Disney said it this afternoon it earned $845 million, or 45 cents a share, during its fiscal first quarter, down from almost $1.3 billion, or 63 cents a share, for the same period a year ago....


Link to article (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-disney-profits-020309,0,5797147.story)

[drusba]

Disney is undoubtedly worried about the economy but i am guessing it is thinking that it can ride through it without any fire sales. Also, in this economy it faces the issue that creating a bunch of new incentives right now might not make much of difference. You just have a lot of people who in normal times may have bought who are not going to buy now regardless of the incentives.

[CarolAnnC]

Just a friendly reminder here that we need to stay on topic which is our 2010 DVC Points Charts. Thanks!

[tjkraz]

Disney is undoubtedly worried about the economy but i am guessing it is thinking that it can ride through it without any fire sales.

In terms of its DVC business, I agree.

There is a very important distinction between discounting things like Disney Cruise voyages / theme park vacations and DVC points. That factor is the supply of what you are selling.

When Disney opens it theme park or resort doors for the day, or a DCL ship leaves the port, the expenses are committed. It's a sunk cost. Whether that ship is 50% full or 100% full, it costs about the same amount to operate. Whether a resort is at 50% occupancy or 100% occupancy, they still have to staff front desk positions, valet parking, housekeeping, food service, etc.

So even if Disney has to offer those DCL cabins and POFQ hotel rooms at half price, they are much better off than allowing them to sit empty.

DVC is much different. Disney has one chance in 50 years to sell points at the Contemporary. They have one chance in 50 years to sell points at the Animal Kingdom Villas. For that reason, it doesn't make much sense to have a "fire sale" to use drusba's words.

The cruise incentive is nice but hardly unprecedented. 2 and 3 years ago DVC was offering double developer's points, 15% discounts, free annual pass vouchers, $500 gift cards, and so on. In this case, the only sailing dates available are fall (hurricane season) and winter itineraries--periods when DCL is certain to have trouble booking the ship without DVC's assistance. I think the promotion speaks more to the troubles of DCL than those of DVC--although I'm sure they both see it as helping the other out. And let's not forget that this comes in the wake of an 8% price hike on the points. If we factor in the AKV incentive also going from $8 down to $6.25, it's a net 10% price increase over the last 2 months.

[SunnieRN]

I've been reading through the thread for several days now and I have a question I will try to phrase as it has me stumped. Since the contracts holders that are most effected by the changes of the reallocation are the smaller contracts, and the change in weekend points was not really that significant, what is going to happen to all the extra days that are freed up by people traveling less?
Does this make sense?
If a lot of people have to shave a day off their trips, move to smaller units etc, will there be enough people on the other end of the spectrum to make up the difference?
It seems that even larger point members will end up spending less extra weekdays at some point? And if everyone or even half of the members try to conserve points by stepping down to the next smaller villa wont that create even more gridlock and a harder time for the small contract holders? Also I don't think anyone who suddenly has three points or even 20 pts extra for their yearly trip can add enough days to make up the difference or move to larger units for the same amount of time.
This is like a math word problem to my way of thinking and I hate math!
I know my "logic" is probably skewed, but can someone explain this to me?

[Dean]

I've been reading through the thread for several days now and I have a question I will try to phrase as it has me stumped. Since the contracts holders that are most effected by the changes of the reallocation are the smaller contracts, and the change in weekend points was not really that significant, what is going to happen to all the extra days that are freed up by people traveling less?
Does this make sense?
If a lot of people have to shave a day off their trips, move to smaller units etc, will there be enough people on the other end of the spectrum to make up the difference?
It seems that even larger point members will end up spending less extra weekdays at some point? And if everyone or even half of the members try to conserve points by stepping down to the next smaller villa wont that create even more gridlock and a harder time for the small contract holders? Also I don't think anyone who suddenly has three points or even 20 pts extra for their yearly trip can add enough days to make up the difference or move to larger units for the same amount of time.
This is like a math word problem to my way of thinking and I hate math!
I know my "logic" is probably skewed, but can someone explain this to me?Any system such as this is an average of members approaches. You've got those that chose to reserve avoiding weekends likely myself, those that don't have enough to do anything else, those that do stay weekends, those that stay more on weekends and any variation you can think of. My expectations are that this change will shift the percentages of those type of groups toward more weekend days overall and slightly less weekdays. Given that you can't go higher than a certain occupancy % and weekdays are still lower, you'll likely see an increase in weekends much more than a decrease in weekdays as some of the orphaned points are put back into play. Specific to those days freed up related to members who don't have enough to do elsewhere, DVC is banking on the idea that others will MORE than take up the slack and fill the weekends. I would bet that DVC is correct and that the overall mix of reservations will be more evened out after the change than before. Of course it'll take some time to see what happens and really a couple of years or more for members to settle in to new reservation patterns. Like now, we'll likely never have the facts but if we did, we'd only have a 5 page thread here.

[Starr W.]

Any system such as this is an average of members approaches. You've got those that chose to reserve avoiding weekends likely myself, those that don't have enough to do anything else, those that do stay weekends, those that stay more on weekends and any variation you can think of. My expectations are that this change will shift the percentages of those type of groups toward more weekend days overall and slightly less weekdays. Given that you can't go higher than a certain occupancy % and weekdays are still lower, you'll likely see an increase in weekends much more than a decrease in weekdays as some of the orphaned points are put back into play. Specific to those days freed up related to members who don't have enough to do elsewhere, DVC is banking on the idea that others will MORE than take up the slack and fill the weekends. I would bet that DVC is correct and that the overall mix of reservations will be more evened out after the change than before. Of course it'll take some time to see what happens and really a couple of years or more for members to settle in to new reservation patterns. Like now, we'll likely never have the facts but if we did, we'd only have a 5 page thread here.

I agree Dean, it's going to take a couple of years to see how all this plays out and to be able to get a read on how people are using their points. Plus I think you need to factor in the new reseservation policy along with the new point totals. I think we just got a handle on the res. policy, now we need to see how it works with the new point charts.

[White_Sox_Fan]

I've been reading through the thread for several days now and I have a question I will try to phrase as it has me stumped. Since the contracts holders that are most effected by the changes of the reallocation are the smaller contracts, and the change in weekend points was not really that significant, what is going to happen to all the extra days that are freed up by people traveling less?
Does this make sense?
If a lot of people have to shave a day off their trips, move to smaller units etc, will there be enough people on the other end of the spectrum to make up the difference?
It seems that even larger point members will end up spending less extra weekdays at some point? And if everyone or even half of the members try to conserve points by stepping down to the next smaller villa wont that create even more gridlock and a harder time for the small contract holders? Also I don't think anyone who suddenly has three points or even 20 pts extra for their yearly trip can add enough days to make up the difference or move to larger units for the same amount of time.
This is like a math word problem to my way of thinking and I hate math!
I know my "logic" is probably skewed, but can someone explain this to me?

By raising the point values on weekdays they have essentially created more supply on weekdays. By all reasoning there was enough demand for these days that there will still be no problem filling them. By lowering weekend points there is less supply so the same amount of point usage will yield a higher occupancy rate. Will it work as planned? We'll have to wait and see. I expect that things will hold for the next few years to fully evaluate the changes in the system.

I would agree with a lot of what has been said that 160 point minimum, along with two very large resorts being added, has helped to create this demand shift. You see several threads where people asked how many points they need to purchase. There never is a concrete answer. When we purchased we felt 160 points was not going to give us enough flexibility (and isn't that one of the best features of DVC) to meet our needs. I never had any preset expectation as to a certain number of nights I should expect from my purchase and maybe that is why I am not as upset as everyone else. I just use them as I need them. For example this March my daughter has a school trip where the band, choir, orchestra and dance academy perform. My wife and I, along with my parents, friends and my daughters friends relatives are all going to be there but for different lengths of time. I have a 2BR from F-W, a studio from S-W and another studio from M-W. This is exactly the kind of flexibility I want from the system. The price one pays for this flexibility is the possibility that shifting demand may require the type of restructuring that has been done.

[hellerjw]

The cruise incentive is nice but hardly unprecedented. 2 and 3 years ago DVC was offering double developer's points, 15% discounts, free annual pass vouchers, $500 gift cards, and so on. In this case, the only sailing dates available are fall (hurricane season) and winter itineraries--periods when DCL is certain to have trouble booking the ship without DVC's assistance. I think the promotion speaks more to the troubles of DCL than those of DVC--although I'm sure they both see it as helping the other out. And let's not forget that this comes in the wake of an 8% price hike on the points. If we factor in the AKV incentive also going from $8 down to $6.25, it's a net 10% price increase over the last 2 months.

Makes me really glad we did our AKV add-ons last August when we got matching DPs, two $500 gift cards and the $8/pt discount ($96/pt). I may have actually timed something pretty well for a change :)

[Anal Annie]

I've been reading through the thread for several days now and I have a question I will try to phrase as it has me stumped. Since the contracts holders that are most effected by the changes of the reallocation are the smaller contracts, and the change in weekend points was not really that significant, what is going to happen to all the extra days that are freed up by people traveling less?Does this make sense?
If a lot of people have to shave a day off their trips, move to smaller units etc, will there be enough people on the other end of the spectrum to make up the difference?
It seems that even larger point members will end up spending less extra weekdays at some point? And if everyone or even half of the members try to conserve points by stepping down to the next smaller villa wont that create even more gridlock and a harder time for the small contract holders? Also I don't think anyone who suddenly has three points or even 20 pts extra for their yearly trip can add enough days to make up the difference or move to larger units for the same amount of time.
This is like a math word problem to my way of thinking and I hate math!:rotfl: Me too!
I know my "logic" is probably skewed, but can someone explain this to me?

My thoughts exactly.

I think that Thursdays will end up being WIDE open for ressies (as personally, if we were planning a Sun-Thur trip and have to drop a day off it will be Thurs so we can keep one day on the weekend which is less time off work). In our case, we may drop the entire trip as it's harder to justify the airfare for less nights. Personally, we might go ahead & book the unit then watch for a deal on the air then cancel the whole trip if we can't find a deal to get there. I think that the frequency of shorter trips are a big unknown now. I think travel patterns will change for many.

Also, I think that there will be a lot of people dropping in unit size. Many DVC'ers have previously booked larger units because they like the extra space but not necessarily because they NEEDED the extra space. Now if they need to conserve points I think more people will bring aerobeds so their teenage boys & girls don't have that taboo sleeping arrangement issue and they will drop from a 2 bedroom to a one bedroom and more who used to use 1 bedrooms will cut back to studios in order to stretch their points. I think that those of us who only ever intended to use studios will find more competition for our usual accomodations.


Now, what I am wondering is if the guides are being up front about these new charts with new potential buyers.:confused3 If I walked up to a kiosk or took the tour today and inquired about how many points I should think about buying would they TELL me I need to consider the new charts before buying? Just curious how DVC sales are handling this reallocation with potential new members. Are they showing them what COULD happen by comparing the 2 years of charts with their customers???

[bobbiwoz]

Well, there are still people like us who would consider adding Thursday night to the reservation for a long weekend. I have found in booking long weekends, that it's often Sunday that is hard to get...long weekend people and Sunday to Friday morning people want them. I've also done Thursday to Monday morning. I think there are more people who do not always book Sunday to Friday morning who will adjust to what's available.

Sundays are hard, in fact, for this June, (about 6 months from booking) I only wanted 4 nights since I had exactly 50 points to spend. Sunday night was booked, but I got a combo of BCV 1 night and then AKV standard 3 nights, Monday to Friday Morning, 50 points, exactly right!:goodvibes

My only waitlist that didn't come through was also for a Sunday night and I have a Sunday night waitlist now.

Bobbi:goodvibes

[BWV Dreamin]

Well, there are still people like us who would consider adding Thursday night to the reservation for a long weekend. I have found in booking long weekends, that it's often Sunday that is hard to get...long weekend people and Sunday to Friday morning people want them. I've also done Thursday to Monday morning. I think there are more people who do not always book Sunday to Friday morning who will adjust to what's available.

Sundays are hard, in fact, for this June, (about 6 months from booking) I only wanted 4 nights since I had exactly 50 points to spend. Sunday night was booked, but I got a combo of BCV 1 night and then AKV standard 3 nights, Monday to Friday Morning, 50 points, exactly right!:goodvibes

My only waitlist that didn't come through was also for a Sunday night and I have a Sunday night waitlist now.

Bobbi:goodvibes
This is exactly what I am doing next year.....using 50 pts. at 7 mos., will be making a ressie for Thurs., Fri, Sat.....then moving on to my home resort for 6 days! I am hoping I have good luck starting on the Thursday! :flower3:

[bobbiwoz]

This is exactly what I am doing next year.....using 50 pts. at 7 mos., will be making a ressie for Thurs., Fri, Sat.....then moving on to my home resort for 6 days! I am hoping I have good luck starting on the Thursday! :flower3:

:flower3: And here's some pixie dust for you!pixiedust:

Bobbi:goodvibes

[jenelope]

I just got back from a long business trip, so pardon me if this has already been discussed. My first reaction to the news was that they must have a lot of people using their points for S-Th stays, leaving them with a lot of open rooms on the weekends and not enough open inventory on weeknights. It makes sense that they would try to correct that,

For my usual style of vacation, it's not going to make too much difference. I usually stay in a studio for 7-8 nights. However, when I bring my family with me, I usually do a S-Th stay in a two bedroom villa. That's going to put a pinch on my points, but I suppose it's manageable.

The one thing that really is going to be very different for me is that I may no longer stay in my home resort (SSR) when I travel in October. A week in a studio at SSR in October went up 8 points. Most non-Premier Season points categories went up 0-4 points per week. I haven't looked at every single chart, but it appears that it's one of the biggest jumps in point value that isn't a grand villa during Premier Season. I feel like a) I'm being subtly discouraged from vacationing at that time; and b) those people who complain about SSR owners playing havoc with BWV and BCV availability during Food and Wine Festival are really going to have something to complain about now.

[jana]

When Disney originally set up the high cost for weekends the justification was that they were concerned that locals ( Fl residents) would book up all the weekends and that people wanting longer trips would find they may have to check out mid stay and move to another resort or just go home. I will guess that with time and changes in the way many of the members now vacation Disney has realized that perhaps they were a little too extreme with their original costing differences and what has happened is the exact opposite of what they wanted to avoid, but has the same result, in that weekdays are full and weekends not so, still an inconvenience by limiting booking options/availability.

This is certainly an issue to the members as it is impacting availability. Perhaps more of a driving reason to the change is that the available rooms that Disney has to rent out in order to pay for cash bookings (concierge collection or cruises) are high point cost weekend nights. Disney can earn much more revenue from, for example, 50 points by using it for 5 nights midweek than it can by charging granted slightly more per night but only having 2 nights at a weekend. I.E. 5X$250 per night = $1250 vs 2X$350=$700

By leveling out demand over the week it will, hopefully, benefit members by having more members (mostly Fl residents) using their points at weekends therefore freeing up more weekdays for all of us. I hope that if it does, as I believe, mean Disney can become more efficient at raising revenue from the points members exchange back for cash cost usages. Hopefully it will allow DVC to reduce the points cost for those options as they will be able to raise more money from those cash rentals rather than just pocket the difference.

[photobob]

I just got back from a long business trip, so pardon me if this has already been discussed. My first reaction to the news was that they must have a lot of people using their points for S-Th stays, leaving them with a lot of open rooms on the weekends and not enough open inventory on weeknights. It makes sense that they would try to correct that,

For my usual style of vacation, it's not going to make too much difference. I usually stay in a studio for 7-8 nights. However, when I bring my family with me, I usually do a S-Th stay in a two bedroom villa. That's going to put a pinch on my points, but I suppose it's manageable.

The one thing that really is going to be very different for me is that I may no longer stay in my home resort (SSR) when I travel in October. A week in a studio at SSR in October went up 8 points. Most non-Premier Season points categories went up 0-4 points per week. I haven't looked at every single chart, but it appears that it's one of the biggest jumps in point value that isn't a grand villa during Premier Season. I feel like a) I'm being subtly discouraged from vacationing at that time; and b) those people who complain about SSR owners playing havoc with BWV and BCV availability during Food and Wine Festival are really going to have something to complain about now.

Personally I think it will make studios and 1 bedroom villas much more difficult to get at the 7 month mark. The higher point costs will make people rent smaller rooms. I very well may be wrong, but it is my best guess. I believe it will make it even more important to buy where you want to stay especially for studios.

As far as SSR owners mucking up the system, that is understandable because there are so many of us, but any DVC member would want to stay at the Epcot resorts during F&W. I would think by the seventh month window rooms for that time would be few and far between anyway. If you don't want to get blocked out of your home resort, make your reservation before the seven month window opens.

[WendyinNC]

Well, I was upset by this change at first since I have a small 55 point add on at HH that I was planning on using for a Sunday - Thurs. night stay in a 2BR in the summer every 3 years. I was trying to decide whether I should sell this contract, keep it and just use it for misc. 7 month points, or add on. Well, I guess I'm drinking too much Koolaid because I just put in an offer on a 150 point HH re-sale. Now I will have enough points for a Sunday - Thurs. night stay every summer. That is, until they change the points chart again.

[bobbiwoz]

Well, I was upset by this change at first since I have a small 55 point add on at HH that I was planning on using for a Sunday - Thurs. night stay in a 2BR in the summer every 3 years. I was trying to decide whether I should sell this contract, keep it and just use it for misc. 7 month points, or add on. Well, I guess I'm drinking too much Koolaid because I just put in an offer on a 150 point HH re-sale. Now I will have enough points for a Sunday - Thurs. night stay every summer. That is, until they change the points chart again.

Congratulations, I hope you pass! I've never been to HH, but as much as I love the Jersey Shore, and VB...I'm sure I would love it as much as you do. I'm glad you'll be seeing more if it!
Bobbi:goodvibes

[jekjones1558]

Well, I guess I'm drinking too much Koolaid because I just put in an offer on a 150 point HH re-sale. Now I will have enough points for a Sunday - Thurs. night stay every summer

I am green with envy. I made my first trip to HHI last May and fell in love. Good luck on ROFR! pixiedust:

[jenelope]

As far as SSR owners mucking up the system, that is understandable because there are so many of us, but any DVC member would want to stay at the Epcot resorts during F&W. I would think by the seventh month window rooms for that time would be few and far between anyway. If you don't want to get blocked out of your home resort, make your reservation before the seven month window opens.

I actually haven't wanted to stay at the Epcot resorts at any time, including F&W. It never seemed worth the hassle of trying to make a ressie at 7 months when my home resort used fewer points for the same time and I could make my plans earlier. Besides, I'm one of those people who likes to leave the theme parks behind at the end of the day, so SSR suits me just fine. But, now that my home resort takes exactly the same number of points for a F&W Festival week, I'm more inclined to try for an Epcot resort. I think if there were other point-thrifty SSR owners out there and they start thinking the same way, it's going to make it next to impossible for anyone to get the Epcot resort studios.

[Anal Annie]

When Disney originally set up the high cost for weekends the justification was that they were concerned that locals ( Fl residents) would book up all the weekends and that people wanting longer trips would find they may have to check out mid stay and move to another resort or just go home. I will guess that with time and changes in the way many of the members now vacation Disney has realized that perhaps they were a little too extreme with their original costing differences and what has happened is the exact opposite of what they wanted to avoid, but has the same result, in that weekdays are full and weekends not so, still an inconvenience by limiting booking options/availability.

This is certainly an issue to the members as it is impacting availability. Perhaps more of a driving reason to the change is that the available rooms that Disney has to rent out in order to pay for cash bookings (concierge collection or cruises) are high point cost weekend nights. Disney can earn much more revenue from, for example, 50 points by using it for 5 nights midweek than it can by charging granted slightly more per night but only having 2 nights at a weekend. I.E. 5X$250 per night = $1250 vs 2X$350=$700
Every time I get a cash price on a DVC unit the weekdays and weekends are the exactly same price. They don't separate them in any way with their pricing. A Wed. is the same cash rate as a Saturday. So this move would solve nothing in that respect. I just looked on the website today in fact to see what the cash price would've been for our vacation this summer. All 7 n at BCV were the same price per night.

By leveling out demand over the week it will, hopefully, benefit members by having more members (mostly Fl residents) using their points at weekends therefore freeing up more weekdays for all of us. I hope that if it does, as I believe, mean Disney can become more efficient at raising revenue from the points members exchange back for cash cost usages. Hopefully it will allow DVC to reduce the points cost for those options as they will be able to raise more money from those cash rentals rather than just pocket the difference.

:rotfl2: I'm sorry to laugh. But that last bit's kinda funny. I think you might be sipping on the so-called koolaid too! DVC ain't about to turn around and give us anything back in return, especially a better rate on something.

[tjkraz]

:rotfl2: I'm sorry to laugh. But that's kinda funny. I think you might be sipping on the so-called koolaid too! DVC ain't about to turn around and give us anything back in return, especially a better rate on something.

The point values for booking outside of the DVC resorts are reviewed at least once annually and there have been times where they were adjusted in members' favor. IIRC, about 2 years ago the cost for using points toward DCL went down from the prior year.

[Anal Annie]

The point values for booking outside of the DVC resorts are reviewed at least once annually and there have been times where they were adjusted in members' favor. IIRC, about 2 years ago the cost for using points toward DCL went down from the prior year.

:lmao: STOP it! You're gonna make milk come out my nose!:rotfl2:

[BroganMc]

But, now that my home resort takes exactly the same number of points for a F&W Festival week, I'm more inclined to try for an Epcot resort. I think if there were other point-thrifty SSR owners out there and they start thinking the same way, it's going to make it next to impossible for anyone to get the Epcot resort studios.

I was just thinking that myself. I know seeing points equalize for VWL, BWV, BCV and SSR for Choice sure made me more interested in booking stays elsewhere.

In other news, I had a call from Member Satisfaction Team today. Talked for a long time about the point reallocation and how it affects us. CM said she had gotten a lot of response about how poor the communication was. I also questioned the legality of adjusting the charts for occupancy on BLT before the resort had been booked to show occupancy traits. She wrote down my suggestions about how to address the needs of BLT owners.

My main points were:


raising the weekly totals caused the appearance of devaluing an existing contract with point inflation (That seems to betray Disney's sales approach of locking in resort prices.)
poor communications and the sloppy handling of the website release gives the appearance Disney is trying to mistreat owners by dictating and not being forthright.
violation of BLT contract sitpulation for how and when a point reallocation was made
point chart calculations are not adding up in every calculation I've done or seen, need to see some numbers to justify that the charts are truly balanced
The change will not encourage me to stay weekends but rather to drop a vacation day a year
BLT owners were abused with the minimum point add-on being raised a week before these new charts were released. I suggested Disney allow a one time sub-100 point add-on purchase for all BLT buyers prior to Jan 15 to make up the difference in their contracts.


I'm not sure if upper management will listen or do anything about it. We also talked about unrelated things like the switch to RCI and the 7 day booking. And I made a request to have that RCI announcement on the phone shortened or bypassed. I'm so sick of having to sit through the same spiel again and again.

CM Joy had a good demeanor and tried to stress how much Disney valued its members, but I drove home the point that the latest actions did not give that appearance at all. Changing those weekly totals is probably the biggest no-no on average. She mentioned that the annual DVC Planners will be going out in the next couple weeks and expects a lot more feedback from members as they get the news of the changed charts. We speculated that many members do not know of the change yet and many will react negatively.

And I closed with the mentioned that because of these sudden changes, I'm stilling my tongue in encouraging new buyers. I made the comparison to my Marriott ownership and that it seemed the better program as of now.

[tjkraz]

:lmao: STOP it! You're gonna make milk come out my nose!:rotfl2:

In 2005, 7-night Eastern cruise, Cat 11, Value season was 141 points per adult. As of 2008 that same cruise / cabin / season was 133 points per adult.

And that's just one example. All of the cruise points went down.

DVC also altered the Disneyland points structure from a flat amount every night of the week to the weighted weekday / weekend rates we have now. In 2005 a Grand Californian Standard View, Value Season, was a fixed 39 points per night regardless of the day of the week. By 2008 the same room was 19 points per weeknight and 30 points per Fri-Sat night.

Try not to choke.

[LIFERBABE]

I was just thinking that myself. I know seeing points equalize for VWL, BWV, BCV and SSR for Choice sure made me more interested in booking stays elsewhere.

In other news, I had a call from Member Satisfaction Team today. Talked for a long time about the point reallocation and how it affects us. CM said she had gotten a lot of response about how poor the communication was. I also questioned the legality of adjusting the charts for occupancy on BLT before the resort had been booked to show occupancy traits. She wrote down my suggestions about how to address the needs of BLT owners.

My main points were:


raising the weekly totals caused the appearance of devaluing an existing contract with point inflation (That seems to betray Disney's sales approach of locking in resort prices.)
poor communications and the sloppy handling of the website release gives the appearance Disney is trying to mistreat owners by dictating and not being forthright.
violation of BLT contract sitpulation for how and when a point reallocation was made
point chart calculations are not adding up in every calculation I've done or seen, need to see some numbers to justify that the charts are truly balanced
The change will not encourage me to stay weekends but rather to drop a vacation day a year
BLT owners were abused with the minimum point add-on being raised a week before these new charts were released. I suggested Disney allow a one time sub-100 point add-on purchase for all BLT buyers prior to Jan 15 to make up the difference in their contracts.


I'm not sure if upper management will listen or do anything about it. We also talked about unrelated things like the switch to RCI and the 7 day booking. And I made a request to have that RCI announcement on the phone shortened or bypassed. I'm so sick of having to sit through the same spiel again and again.

CM Joy had a good demeanor and tried to stress how much Disney valued its members, but I drove home the point that the latest actions did not give that appearance at all. Changing those weekly totals is probably the biggest no-no on average. She mentioned that the annual DVC Planners will be going out in the next couple weeks and expects a lot more feedback from members as they get the news of the changed charts. We speculated that many members do not know of the change yet and many will react negatively.

And I closed with the mentioned that because of these sudden changes, I'm stilling my tongue in encouraging new buyers. I made the comparison to my Marriott ownership and that it seemed the better program as of now.

Thank you Brogan, I think you did an excellent job:thumbsup2

My sentiments exactly!

I haven't liked Kool-Aid since I was a child. Ever since I watched that made-for-tv movie. That and we always had a lack of sugar at our house.

[Anal Annie]

In 2005, 7-night Eastern cruise, Cat 11, Value season was 141 points per adult. As of 2008 that same cruise / cabin / season was 133 points per adult.

And that's just one example. All of the cruise points went down.

DVC also altered the Disneyland points structure from a flat amount every night of the week to the weighted weekday / weekend rates we have now. In 2005 a Grand Californian Standard View, Value Season, was a fixed 39 points per night regardless of the day of the week. By 2008 the same room was 19 points per weeknight and 30 points per Fri-Sat night.

Try not to choke.

And our 2008 4 nighter in a Cat 10 went from 392 points last year to 473 points in 2010. An increase of 81 points for 4 nights. (I'm still choking on THAT one.)

[tjkraz]

And our 2008 4 nighter in a Cat 10 went from 392 points last year to 473 points in 2010. An increase of 81 points for 4 nights. (I'm still choking on THAT one.)

And I would expect future adjustments--either up or down--in response to how the value of points changes following the reallocation.

[SunnieRN]

Ok, absolutely no offense ment, I think saratoga springs is absolutely gorgeous and I love the "feel" of the resort and the decor is bright, relaxing and very easy to live with, but... what is the purpose of making it the same point cost as the epcot resorts in Oct during food and wine?
The only thing I could figure out is that being the largest resort, and the popularity of F&W that Disney figures there will be a greater demand for rooms at that time as popularity for the event keeps growing. This in turn will increase the points used during the food and wine festival as SS can take in a lot of "overflow" from the smaller resorts. Hmmm smart move disney, inless it clogs up all the other resorts that are the same points and more convienient.

[Dean]

I was just thinking that myself. I know seeing points equalize for VWL, BWV, BCV and SSR for Choice sure made me more interested in booking stays elsewhere.

In other news, I had a call from Member Satisfaction Team today. Talked for a long time about the point reallocation and how it affects us. CM said she had gotten a lot of response about how poor the communication was. I also questioned the legality of adjusting the charts for occupancy on BLT before the resort had been booked to show occupancy traits. She wrote down my suggestions about how to address the needs of BLT owners.

My main points were:


raising the weekly totals caused the appearance of devaluing an existing contract with point inflation (That seems to betray Disney's sales approach of locking in resort prices.)
poor communications and the sloppy handling of the website release gives the appearance Disney is trying to mistreat owners by dictating and not being forthright.
violation of BLT contract sitpulation for how and when a point reallocation was made
point chart calculations are not adding up in every calculation I've done or seen, need to see some numbers to justify that the charts are truly balanced
The change will not encourage me to stay weekends but rather to drop a vacation day a year
BLT owners were abused with the minimum point add-on being raised a week before these new charts were released. I suggested Disney allow a one time sub-100 point add-on purchase for all BLT buyers prior to Jan 15 to make up the difference in their contracts.


I'm not sure if upper management will listen or do anything about it. We also talked about unrelated things like the switch to RCI and the 7 day booking. And I made a request to have that RCI announcement on the phone shortened or bypassed. I'm so sick of having to sit through the same spiel again and again.

CM Joy had a good demeanor and tried to stress how much Disney valued its members, but I drove home the point that the latest actions did not give that appearance at all. Changing those weekly totals is probably the biggest no-no on average. She mentioned that the annual DVC Planners will be going out in the next couple weeks and expects a lot more feedback from members as they get the news of the changed charts. We speculated that many members do not know of the change yet and many will react negatively.

And I closed with the mentioned that because of these sudden changes, I'm stilling my tongue in encouraging new buyers. I made the comparison to my Marriott ownership and that it seemed the better program as of now.In other words, don't call us, we'll call you. Exactly the same type of responses many people got when they complained about the 7 day reservation change.

[BroganMc]

In other words, don't call us, we'll call you. Exactly the same type of responses many people got when they complained about the 7 day reservation change.

That's a bit harsh. It's not like the CMs in Member Services have any decision-making ability. The best they can do is pass along comments and complaints to upper management. If the volume and verocity is sufficient then management may take it to heart.

From what I was told, they already had a lot of people calling to complain about not getting their II requests filled which led to the RCI change. But Joy did mention that they were just as booked on weekends as weekdays so she dismissed the idea that this point reallocation was done solely to encourage weekend stays.

When you think about it, it's counterproductive anyway. Weekend points are still higher and now that weekday points are higher too, members have less surplus to spend on the more expensive weekends.

That all just leads me to believe whatever the thinking employed to reallocate these charts was it did not really address the concerns we've long debated on this thread. It's as if someone looked at the high bookings and decided the points should be changed to match demand not balance demand throughout the schedule. That would explain why we see studios increasing so much in Choice season. It would also explain why someone would think it perfectly reasonable to increase the weekly requirements of a BWV 2bedroom in magic from the even 350 points to 352. No one bothered to consider members may have just purchased enough points to cover a week in their preferred season and found that suddenly taken away.

Like I told Joy, in all the times I've visited the Preview Center and sat in on a sales presentation I have NEVER heard the recommendation to add 20% to a buyer's point purchase for possible reallocation. The conversation has always been "When do you like to travel, what size room do you need, these are the charts to fill those needs". The caveat of rebalancing the charts always takes the form of "nightly totals may change" but with no emphasis that weekly totals are subject to change.

Give the DVC Planners a chance to hit people's mailboxes and then I predict a much larger hue and cry from general membership. We have yet to see the fall out from this change.

[toocherie]

Give the DVC Planners a chance to hit people's mailboxes and then I predict a much larger hue and cry from general membership. We have yet to see the fall out from this change.

But how do you get the genie back in the bottle? I suspect that there are many members who are happy with the change (some of them have posted on this thread) who would not be happy if the charts went back to what they were pre January 15. And if the original change was based on historical demand, I would think those members would have a much stronger case that something was amiss.

(However, I do agree with your suggestion that pre-BLT buyers be given the chance to purchase less than 100 points)

[BroganMc]

But how do you get the genie back in the bottle? I suspect that there are many members who are happy with the change (some of them have posted on this thread) who would not be happy if the charts went back to what they were pre January 15. And if the original change was based on historical demand, I would think those members would have a much stronger case that something was amiss.

(However, I do agree with your suggestion that pre-BLT buyers be given the chance to purchase less than 100 points)

Looking at the charts and possible configurations I'm just not seeing how the weekend warriors are benefitting enough to overwhelm those who are now short points. In most cases people saved a couple pooints but not enough to cover another day's stay. And in the scheme of things, it is those who are hurt by a change who squeak the loudest. So while some may see a few more points banked for the next year's use, I doubt Disney will hear from them. It's those who are short who will reach out and complain.

But having said that, I'm a realist. DVC has gone to too much trouble in putting together and releasing these charts. They've already started booking rooms under the new point chart. I have no illusions we'll see a pre-2010 chart reinstituted. What I'm hoping to see is more detailed explanation from DVC to clarify that the charts are indeed balanced (at least giving members a way of obtaining a resort breakdown of total point allotments and/or explanation of how rooms and points were calculated) and a temporary reprieve for BLT owners allowing them to make small add-ons.

And yes, if there's enough negative backlash I doubt we'll be seeing another point chart change for a long while. If they do issue another adjustment for 2011, I'd hope they'd go back and adjust those weekly totals for the sold out resorts to 2009 levels. It's incredibly bad form to have members who've owned for years suddenly be short points for a given week.

The ball is in their court. How they react to the feedback they get will be the telling factor of the company's character and how it thinks of members.

[Dean]

That's a bit harsh. It's not like the CMs in Member Services have any decision-making ability. The best they can do is pass along comments and complaints to upper management. If the volume and verocity is sufficient then management may take it to heart.That's exactly the point. There was a larger cry from members on the reservations issues and we saw a number of points exactly like yours that I quoted. At this point it's about people skills from MS, not substance. Not intending to be harsh but they have NO authority to change this plus you, I and they know it will not change overall other than possibly another reallocation in a few years once his settles out.

Looking at the charts and possible configurations I'm just not seeing how the weekend warriors are benefitting enough to overwhelm those who are now short points. In most cases people saved a couple pooints but not enough to cover another day's stay. And in the scheme of things, it is those who are hurt by a change who squeak the loudest. So while some may see a few more points banked for the next year's use, I doubt Disney will hear from them. It's those who are short who will reach out and complain.
I don't think anyone believes this change will make people say they only want to go weekends because it's just as cheap, if everyone did so it'd screw up the system even more than it was before. What it will do is cause some to stay over a weekend that would not have otherwise and it will cause some to say over just a weekend that would not have done it otherwise. That added to the rooms freed up because S-F people are using up more of their points is all it really needs to do for the desired effect. A 3-4% shift across the board will likely be enough to produce the desired balance.

[CheapMom]

Ok, absolutely no offense ment, I think saratoga springs is absolutely gorgeous and I love the "feel" of the resort and the decor is bright, relaxing and very easy to live with, but... what is the purpose of making it the same point cost as the epcot resorts in Oct during food and wine?


no offense taken- and i am a ssr owner/lover/defender. You are so right. It does not make sense. I love SSR but it is hard to deny the fact that it is DVC's overflow property.

[drusba]

Looking at the charts and possible configurations I'm just not seeing how the weekend warriors are benefitting enough to overwhelm those who are now short points.

And yes, if there's enough negative backlash I doubt we'll be seeing another point chart change for a long while. If they do issue another adjustment for 2011, I'd hope they'd go back and adjust those weekly totals for the sold out resorts to 2009 levels. It's incredibly bad form to have members who've owned for years suddenly be short points for a given week.

The ball is in their court. How they react to the feedback they get will be the telling factor of the company's character and how it thinks of members.

Agree this won't really shift demand to the weekends. The more certain result is to lower overall demand for weekdays -- because of higher points there will be overall less demand.

And that raises an interesting question. They are limited to making no more than a 20% change per day (up or down) from the prior year. At HH and VB they essentially went to 20% and come close to it for some of the changes at the WDW resorts. Could this be simply the first step in an already planned further shift for 2011? One question i would like the powers to be to answer is whether there is plan to make another change or whether there has been any discussion about making another change in the next couple of years.

[dcfromva]

I don't think anyone believes this change will make people say they only want to go weekends because it's just as cheap, if everyone did so it'd screw up the system even more than it was before. What it will do is cause some to stay over a weekend that would not have otherwise and it will cause some to say over just a weekend that would not have done it otherwise. That added to the rooms freed up because S-F people are using up more of their points is all it really needs to do for the desired effect. A 3-4% shift across the board will likely be enough to produce the desired balance.

Dean,
We may not be the average DVCer, but this change does work out in our favor. We mostly go over long weekends because we have limited vacation time (we are at BWV right now :thumbsup2 ). Most likely, we will get another weekend or two when all it said and done. (I still haven't figured out next years' vacation schedule :) ).

Another thing that has changed (in the upcoming year anyway) is some of the special events are focused around the weekend as opposed to 7 days. Example, Flower Power concerts for the F& G. And Eat to the Beat concerts for Food and Wine. I think this will make the weekend nights more desirable for some folks.

[BobH]

It would be nice to see Disney management exhibit some better people skills.
They have probably sold so many smaller contracts that too much presssure has been put on Sun-Thurs reservation period. Then they go shoot themselves in the foot by changing the point schedule and creating a 100 point add on minimum at BLT, or maybe they are attempting to limit other DVC members from chopping up the available point contracts into too many small pieces. Whatever the reason Disney's management is not promoting future sales by creating all this turmoil. How about a little truth for change? The marketing team and management should have someone on the board that actually reads these discussion boards and has some idea of what the concerns of the members are - giving no explanation, or a poor explanation regarding the point changes just leads me to believe that Disney management is incompetent or does not care to explain anything. Either way they are not advancing their own cause and may be hurting the sales that justify their jobs.

[jodifla]

I'm surprised that so many people bought with such specifics in mind. One type of room, one set of dates. That's more of a traditional timeshare.

I get my annual allotment of points and tend to spend them like a kid in a candy store, not the same thing year in, year out.

Some years it's studios in the fall, some years it's 2 bedrooms in the winter, some years it's Concierge collection.

I did buy a small add on for 56 points at BCV thinking I think 4 nights in a studio, but even when I bought it, I completely recognized those numbers could change.

[Mike]

I'm surprised that so many people bought with such specifics in mind. One type of room, one set of dates. That's more of a traditional timeshare.

I get my annual allotment of points and tend to spend them like a kid in a candy store, not the same thing year in, year out.

Some years it's studios in the fall, some years it's 2 bedrooms in the winter, some years it's Concierge collection.


So let me get this straight, someone that lives within a 3-4 hour drive to WDW can't understand why others don't spend their points "like a kid in a candy store"? :confused3

Is it so hard to imagine that silly little details like work schedules, school schedules, kids sports schedules, family size and transportation costs could dictate visiting the same time each year in the same size accomodations????

[drusba]

So let me get this straight, someone that lives within a 3-4 hour drive to WDW can't understand why others dodn't spend their points "like a kid in a candy store"? :confused3

Is it so hard to imagine that silly little details like work schedules, school schedules, kids sports schedules, family size and transportation costs could dictate visiting the same time each year in the same size accomodations????

A bit harsh, Mike, but a valid point. I presume most come from other states and bought with the idea that they could go once a year at specific times -- maybe not the same time every year but often the same "season," e.g., those looking at school schedules likely mainly bought based on going in magic season. The thing is that conceptually many knew that there could be seasonal shifts but that has proven to be their albatross with the recent change. For example many thought they could buy enough for five nights or even a week in the magic season with the belief that if there are seasonal changes magic season, the highest there was except for Christmas and Easter, wasn't going to go up, some other one would. Even the ones who bought on the basis of getting enough points for a week in the magic season now see an increase at some resorts, and particularly for 1 and 2BRs, which is one that is extremely annoying because it is usually only a couple points, but you have to buy at least 25 (and 100 at BLT) new points to rectify the situation and you know the only reason the week total went up was not even because of any attempt to lower demand for weekdays but because it was done just to make the points come out equally for each weekday and each weekend night.

[BroganMc]

That's exactly the point. There was a larger cry from members on the reservations issues and we saw a number of points exactly like yours that I quoted. At this point it's about people skills from MS, not substance. Not intending to be harsh but they have NO authority to change this plus you, I and they know it will not change overall other than possibly another reallocation in a few years once his settles out.


What makes you think the hue and cry over the reservation window was bigger? Just because discussion of this topic has been limited to one thread on this board does not mean it is less of an issue. From talking to Joy yesterday it sounded like they were pretty backlogged with member complaints on this and expected many more over the next couple weeks.

The interesting thing about the reservation change is that it seems time has proven that change did not adversely affect people as much as some feared. We got into a discussion about that one too. This change has yet to reveal itself. My bet is that it doesn't make one iota of difference in room availability but does overall decrease the amount of time members book their trips. My concern for the program is that it will also give DVC a bad name in the industry with the increase in weekly point totals. If another reallocation is implemented in a couple years and sees yet another weekly increase, I'm even more convinced the program will get a bad rep.


I don't think anyone believes this change will make people say they only want to go weekends because it's just as cheap, if everyone did so it'd screw up the system even more than it was before. What it will do is cause some to stay over a weekend that would not have otherwise and it will cause some to say over just a weekend that would not have done it otherwise. That added to the rooms freed up because S-F people are using up more of their points is all it really needs to do for the desired effect. A 3-4% shift across the board will likely be enough to produce the desired balance.

That just doesn't make sense. S-F people travel then because they like the length of stay. It's a way of stretching your points to get more time at Disney. The point shifts for weekends do not affect that balance.

Look at SSR, for instance. 5 days in a studio in Choice is 65 points (previously 55); a long weekend same season Th-M is 66 points (previously 64). So for 1 more point, you get to stay one less day. That's not appealing to a point stretcher. Even a long weekender is paying 2 more points for their stay.

The only ones who will be encouraged to add more weekend nights to their trips are those already inclined to booking weekends. And they still didn't save enough weekend points to tack on another weekday stay.

I doubt you'll see any shift other than people dropping a day from their stays. Now that may mean Thursdays become more available.

[Chuck S]

So let me get this straight, someone that lives within a 3-4 hour drive to WDW can't understand why others don't spend their points "like a kid in a candy store"? :confused3

Is it so hard to imagine that silly little details like work schedules, school schedules, kids sports schedules, family size and transportation costs could dictate visiting the same time each year in the same size accomodations????


Except that point based times shares are not designed specifically to address the needs of people that must vacation the same week every year, that is the advantage for many people to buying a point based rather than set week timeshare. Point based timeshares are designed to address the changing vacation patterns of their members throughout the life of the ownership.

For instance, many original purchasers at OKW had young kids in 1992, and their travel needs were dictated by school vacation schedules, now most of those young kids are adults, their parents can vacation at other times of the year. Where school vacation times may have been in high demand for reservations in 1992, those same owners may now be requesting Food & Wine season or Early December & January more, increasing demand...or may now be staying fewer weekends than they did originally. Flexibility has its pros & cons, and adjustments may need to be made from time to time. That is why it is important to note the maximum possible allocation as mentioned in the POS.

I know or vacation habits have changed since 1992, since Mom stopped substitute teaching when she turned 70. And it would be wonderful to be able to get a studio at OKW for 69 points for a full week like we could prior to 1996. But things change, that same week increased to 80 points, Starting in 2010, that week will be 77 points. Adjustments will be good for some owners, who will not like them, and good for others. One thing is certain, things WILL change over the course of your DVC ownership,.

[BroganMc]

A bit harsh, Mike, but a valid point. I presume most come from other states and bought with the idea that they could go once a year at specific times -- maybe not the same time every year but often the same "season," e.g., those looking at school schedules likely mainly bought based on going in magic season.

I agree. Which is why changing those weekly totals really troubles me. Especially when the change has been an increase to a rounded number amount such as BWV going from 350 to 352 in Magic season.

What floored me and still gets me is the jump for SSR Studios in Choice over that 100 point amount. (Previously 97 now 105.) If I had purchased just enough to ensure a week then for my small group I'd most likely have picked up 100 points even. Suddenly I'm under my needed amount.

My guess is that the shift in season stays and room sizes is something that takes places over 5-10 years as members' family dynamics change. When the kids are small, they can do studios or 1bedrooms for quick work-only restricted stays. Then as the kids hit school years, they go into Magic and Premier season (Premier if they were able to afford the purchase price). It's only after the kids are teenagers or owners reach empty nest/retirement age that one can start changing up the point usage radically, unless of course they bypassed the whole childrearing scenario and are DINKs.

[BroganMc]

For instance, many original purchasers at OKW had young kids in 1992, and their travel needs were dictated by school vacation schedules, now most of those young kids are adults, their parents can vacation at other times of the year. Where school vacation times may have been in high demand for reservations in 1992, those same owners may now be requesting Food & Wine season or Early December & January more, increasing demand...or may now be staying fewer weekends than they did originally.

Ah, so what you're saying is this point reallocation is really all OKW owners faults?;)

[Chuck S]

Ah, so what you're saying is this point reallocation is really all OKW owners faults?;)

:rotfl2:

No, of course not, BWV VWL, HHI, VB and BCV have been around a while, too, and their owners are likely also experiencing the beginnings of change in their vacation habits as the kids grow up.

[BobH]

I know their books probably get audited and I understand the total points at a resort per year is not supposed to change no matter how the points get re-allocated. I believe Webmaster Doc once posted a nice chart on the number and types of accomodations at each resort, and it might be possible to roughly figure out the total points at a resort - but does anyone actually know what OKW total points are? Does everyone on these boards just assume Disney is actually adhering to the statement in the POS? If they were not how would owners even know?

[LVSWL]

I tend to agree, things will change with the average DVC owner. Children grow up, just as ours did, change from year round schedule to high school, soon to college. We went from traveling off season to busier times of the year and soon will travel when we feel like it. Many families will go through these same cycles. To me it seems that this natural progression would even out things within DVC without them going in and reallocating the points. While my family may be at one point in the cycle, another "younger" family may be at an earlier point in the cycle. I personally think things would have evened out.:confused3

[BroganMc]

:rotfl2:

No, of course not, BWV VWL, HHI, VB and BCV have been around a while, too, and their owners are likely also experiencing the beginnings of change in their vacation habits as the kids grow up.

Ah, so it's just all those pre-SSR owners mucking up the works. Glad to see the ball shifting courts. I was getting lonely in the Black Sheep corral. :lmao:

Although I agree with the opinion that these paradigm shifts in vacation habits should be evening themselves out. There were a lot more new owners coming in with younger families in the last 3-5 years.

More has to fuel these reallocations than just "vacation habits". If not a push for add-on contracts then I suspect the opposite of making newer properties with higher point requirements seem more legitimate. It's very interesting how a studio at SSR is suddenly worth as much as BWV and BCV during F&W.

[Dean]

What makes you think the hue and cry over the reservation window was bigger? Just because discussion of this topic has been limited to one thread on this board does not mean it is less of an issue. From talking to Joy yesterday it sounded like they were pretty backlogged with member complaints on this and expected many more over the next couple weeks.

The interesting thing about the reservation change is that it seems time has proven that change did not adversely affect people as much as some feared. We got into a discussion about that one too. This change has yet to reveal itself. My bet is that it doesn't make one iota of difference in room availability but does overall decrease the amount of time members book their trips. My concern for the program is that it will also give DVC a bad name in the industry with the increase in weekly point totals. If another reallocation is implemented in a couple years and sees yet another weekly increase, I'm even more convinced the program will get a bad rep.Maybe I should have said, that judging from the reaction on DIS, it seemed the outcry before was more than for this. More negative posts from more people on the thread about 7 day reservations. I think you'll see this change too is much ado about nothing for the membership as a whole.



That just doesn't make sense. S-F people travel then because they like the length of stay. It's a way of stretching your points to get more time at Disney. The point shifts for weekends do not affect that balance.

Look at SSR, for instance. 5 days in a studio in Choice is 65 points (previously 55); a long weekend same season Th-M is 66 points (previously 64). So for 1 more point, you get to stay one less day. That's not appealing to a point stretcher. Even a long weekender is paying 2 more points for their stay.

The only ones who will be encouraged to add more weekend nights to their trips are those already inclined to booking weekends. And they still didn't save enough weekend points to tack on another weekday stay.

I doubt you'll see any shift other than people dropping a day from their stays. Now that may mean Thursdays become more available.There are different groups of S-F people and they are not all the same. Some only had that many points, others chose to go those times simply because it was less points even if they had enough and many other variations such as those that stayed 6 days instead of 7 and those that stayed 12 days with one weekend. Many of all of those stayed weekend some other way such as cash or off site, others did not. I think you're assuming that the vast majority of those S-F people only had enough points for those trips. I don't think that's nearly as true as you seem to think it is, I'd venture to guess that far more than half of that group have enough points to stay the same stay now as a minimum with the changes and a large % have enough to stay weekends too if they so choose. And a portion of those that only had enough will add on in some way. It's unrealistic to think that an increase in weekday and decrease in weekends won't shift usage, the only question is how much?, is it enough, is it too much.

I think you're missing one hard fact of DVC and that is that the system is self limiting. If enough rooms go empty, that means points are not being used and ultimately that points will be lost. I doubt many people will want to lose points so they will by default, use those points for the days and resorts that are available. If that happens, you'll see another change in the same direction. You better hope it does work because if it doesn't, there's another guaranteed reallocation coming in about 2-3 years.

[Mike]

Except that point based times shares are not designed specifically to address the needs of people that must vacation the same week every year, that is the advantage for many people to buying a point based rather than set week timeshare.

I never said the same week every year. Our vacations vary from early July to early August. We go for a 2 week period within that window. And that is why I wanted a point based system, not a set week.

drusba hit the nail on the head. I knew that I would be vacationing in the same season for the foreseeable future.

[Dean]

Is it so hard to imagine that silly little details like work schedules, school schedules, kids sports schedules, family size and transportation costs could dictate visiting the same time each year in the same size accomodations????Not at all, many guests are like that. However, it is important to note that the type of ownership dictates your options and RISKS and that each has it's advantages and disadvantages. A fixed week resort guarantees you have a reservation. A floating week, set season system (most Marriott's) guarantees you a shot at a specific full week(s) within that season. A points system guarantees you're competing with a larger group of people, in DVC's case potentially every single member, for the same option. And it presents the inherent and stated risk that the total points for that option might change. Flexibility is the big draw with a points system though they are not always as flexible in all areas as one might think, exchanges come to mind.

[BroganMc]

I never said the same week every year. Our vacations vary from early July to early August. We go for a 2 week period within that window. And that is why I wanted a point based system, not a set week.

drusba hit the nail on the head. I knew that I would be vacationing in the same season for the foreseeable future.

Forgive me for being relatively new to the timeshare world, but my experience with Marriott taught me that the industry does not use fixed weeks anymore. Even when you buy a week's timeshare you are really just buying the rights to book a week during a certain season. Some of those weekly timeshares also allow you to do split weeks or lockoffs. And with the advent of timeshare trading organizations such as II and RCI, you're not even limited to a particular resort.

I can easily use my Marriott weeks outside my season or at another resort. The main difference with a point based system is that I can more easily book shorter stays and change my room sizes.

Isn't it fractional ownership that limits you to a set time and place?

[BroganMc]

Maybe I should have said, that judging from the reaction on DIS, it seemed the outcry before was more than for this. More negative posts from more people on the thread about 7 day reservations. I think you'll see this change too is much ado about nothing for the membership as a whole.

Don't mistake the moderator decision to limit discussion of this topic to one thread for less interest. This topic is being discussed on many boards and with much more negative impact than we see here. Another measure is just how much feedback Member Satisfaction has gotten. From what I understood, it has been considerable. And that's just the first wave of internet savvy members. When new planners hit mailboxes we'll see a better representation of member reaction.

As for the rest I still haven't seen how any of the point charge changes encourage any change in booking patterns OTHER than to have people downsize or drop days from their bookings. When you look at the charts you find that the totals have gone up in a disproportionate amount to what has gone down. By that I mean, any point savings you may have on a weekend does not begin to make up for the increased point costs of weekdays.

That's why I predict this particular change will prove to be an ill-conceived one. All it does is encourage larger point contract purchases and shorten the divide between newer and older resorts, particularly BLT. And that at the cost of disenfranchising existing members.

Now whether upper management will decide they need to adjust again in 2-3 years time, I expect depends more on how current sales are doing than current booking patterns.

[tjkraz]

Don't mistake the moderator decision to limit discussion of this topic to one thread for less interest. This topic is being discussed on many boards and with much more negative impact than we see here.

Oh, I don't know about that. I can think of one forum in particular which is probably having a field day with it. Of course, they tend to have a flair for the overly-dramatic. :rolleyes: But I've looked at a dozen other DVC forums and none of them had a discussion that made it beyond page 2. Even the TUG thread only has 16 posts. :confused3


As for the rest I still haven't seen how any of the point charge changes encourage any change in booking patterns OTHER than to have people downsize or drop days from their bookings.

There will be many different responses to the reallocation. You can't just shoehorn 300k members into a couple of buckets. In many cases people will even vary their approach from one time to another.

My initial reaction is that we may cut down on our trip frequency. Under the 2009 charts we have enough points to take roughly three 5-night trips every two years. Now on some occasions we may instead do two 6-night trips every two years. Obviously we will get fewer nights out of this, but IMO that's not the end of the world. It will be nice to save the $$$ we would have otherwise spent on the third trip--transportation dollars saved, vacation time saved, etc.

Other times we may book in cheaper seasons, smaller rooms, cheaper resorts, etc. We may even add more points in the long run to extend those trips further.

I just think you're spinning your wheels trying to predict what is yet to come. The reallocation is a done-deal. In a few years perhaps we can look back and make some educated statements about how it has impacted the system. But not now.

And I fully expect there will be another reallocation. Perhaps not in 2-3 years, but it will happen.

[tidefan]

Forgive me for being relatively new to the timeshare world, but my experience with Marriott taught me that the industry does not use fixed weeks anymore.

Our St Maarten timeshare we bought resale a few years back is Week 45, Sat-Sat. Every Year. Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel. What's funny is that they have talked a few people into giving up their fixed week and going into "the Club" (floating weeks/points) with Diamond Resorts for an extra $3,000, and now all I hear is their complaints about how they can't get into their week anymore...

As for the rest I still haven't seen how any of the point charge changes encourage any change in booking patterns OTHER than to have people downsize or drop days from their bookings.

Well, for us, it will probably encourage us to go ahead and extend our vacations a day. Usually, we go for a week at a time, Saturday to Saturday, but with the lower weekends, we will probably go Saturday to Sunday. This will allow us to maximize our vacation time and what is an extra day of park tickets from 7 days to 8 days, isn't it like $3 per person? This type of stay would have been 384 points in a Magic 2-Bdrm (297 in a 1-Bdrm) on the old charts, but now would only be 377 (288 in a 1-Bdrm).

[Dean]

Don't mistake the moderator decision to limit discussion of this topic to one thread for less interest. This topic is being discussed on many boards and with much more negative impact than we see here. Another measure is just how much feedback Member Satisfaction has gotten. From what I understood, it has been considerable. And that's just the first wave of internet savvy members. When new planners hit mailboxes we'll see a better representation of member reaction.

As for the rest I still haven't seen how any of the point charge changes encourage any change in booking patterns OTHER than to have people downsize or drop days from their bookings. When you look at the charts you find that the totals have gone up in a disproportionate amount to what has gone down. By that I mean, any point savings you may have on a weekend does not begin to make up for the increased point costs of weekdays.

That's why I predict this particular change will prove to be an ill-conceived one. All it does is encourage larger point contract purchases and shorten the divide between newer and older resorts, particularly BLT. And that at the cost of disenfranchising existing members.

Now whether upper management will decide they need to adjust again in 2-3 years time, I expect depends more on how current sales are doing than current booking patterns.Nothing to do with the limit of a single thread. My interpretation is that the group was yelling louder with the other issue. Worst case scenario would be a smaller group of people yelling louder this time but I don't even think that's the case. Regardless, it really doesn't matter because DVC had the right, the responsibility and will not go back. Unfortunately we don't have hard facts to compare before and after but I think eventually we will get enough secondary evidence to convince at least the open minded. If it increases the size of the average points purchase, that's a good think IMO. If you can't see how lower weekend points encourages people to stay those nights then I'm sorry, with that thinking may as well make all nights the same points because it wouldn't matter anyway.

[Anal Annie]

I'm surprised that so many people bought with such specifics in mind. One type of room, one set of dates. That's more of a traditional timeshare.

I get my annual allotment of points and tend to spend them like a kid in a candy store, not the same thing year in, year out.
Some years it's studios in the fall, some years it's 2 bedrooms in the winter, some years it's Concierge collection.

I did buy a small add on for 56 points at BCV thinking I think 4 nights in a studio, but even when I bought it, I completely recognized those numbers could change.

Lucky you for living within driving distance! Some of us have to factor in whether or not their kid should misss school for a day or two + the added cost of airfare for a family & parking at the airport etc. on top of the time involved to get there (an hours drive to the airport, 90 min. to check-in & get thru security, 2 hours flight if there are no delays etc.). I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to be able to have 3 or 4 long weekends down there but the airfare is just too cost prohibitive so we have to have a set plan every year. If I could just hop in the car & drive it in 3 hours and use 1/2 tank of gas to get there you'd better believe we'd go more often and "use our points like a kid in a candy store". We bought with the idea of being able to take at least 2 trips per year but counted on the total number of points required not changing, which some now have.

[DisneyWalker44]

Don't mistake the moderator decision to limit discussion of this topic to one thread for less interest. This topic is being discussed on many boards and with much more negative impact than we see here. There are also boards where the issue is only getting modest discussion. Boards have personalities. On some, every change is a crisis. One thing we can do is look at the amount of interest a topic gets relative to other issues. This one seems to be getting about the same level of interest as the change to check-in-day-booking. Which is turning out to be a non-issue for most, a modest improvement for many, and a big disappointment for a few. Go back and read all the sky-is-falling posts in that thread. Keep those posts in mind when you read the sky-is-falling posts in this one.

Another measure is just how much feedback Member Satisfaction has gotten. From what I understood, it has been considerable. MS got a ton of feedback on check-in-day too.

And that's just the first wave of internet savvy members. When new planners hit mailboxes we'll see a better representation of member reaction. That's a key point. I suspect most folks don't know. Disney really buried the change in their news section.

As for the rest I still haven't seen how any of the point charge changes encourage any change in booking patterns OTHER than to have people downsize or drop days from their bookings.

First, keep in mind there are a lot of people who don't have a set booking pattern. When I first joined, we did weekday trips in off season. Then as kids got older, that was no longer possible. Now when plane tickets are cheap we squeeze in several long weekend trips. When plane tickets are expensive, we go for longer trips in the summer (ugh). The new charts won't change the way I vacation. But I will now have extra points - which means more trips or inviting more folks on trips.

When you look at the charts you find that the totals have gone up in a disproportionate amount to what has gone down. By that I mean, any point savings you may have on a weekend does not begin to make up for the increased point costs of weekdays. This is simply not true. People like myself who do long weekends are seeing meaningful decreases.

[TisBit]

Lucky you for living within driving distance! Some of us have to factor in whether or not their kid should misss school for a day or two + the added cost of airfare for a family & parking at the airport etc. on top of the time involved to get there (an hours drive to the airport, 90 min. to check-in & get thru security, 2 hours flight if there are no delays etc.). I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to be able to have 3 or 4 long weekends down there but the airfare is just too cost prohibitive so we have to have a set plan every year. If I could just hop in the car & drive it in 3 hours and use 1/2 tank of gas to get there you'd better believe we'd go more often and "use our points like a kid in a candy store". We bought with the idea of being able to take at least 2 trips per year but counted on the total number of points required not changing, which some now have.

I think most people are in that position, but I too didn't buy my points with a specific plan in mind. We alternate our trips every year, sometimes in the summer, sometimes in the fall or spring. We weigh our options when planning a trip. I don't go to WDW every vacation, so I am not a large points owner, but I will continue to book what I can when I can.

We have friends that have larger contracts that will go several times a year, even with all the same hurdles as you. I would never buy anything with that specific of point totals, just because I know my vacation habits will change over 50 years, even if the points don't.

[Capn Dave]

I know their books probably get audited and I understand the total points at a resort per year is not supposed to change no matter how the points get re-allocated. I believe Webmaster Doc once posted a nice chart on the number and types of accomodations at each resort, and it might be possible to roughly figure out the total points at a resort - but does anyone actually know what OKW total points are? Does everyone on these boards just assume Disney is actually adhering to the statement in the POS? If they were not how would owners even know?

I brought this same point up on this board before. I have not heard a satisfactory response as yet.

Is a total point chart readily available to members for each resort?

I wish/hope that Disney would publish this composite chart each time they reallocate points. Not only because we would like to check on their calculations, although I am sure they are required by law to keep total point allocations per resort the same, but just to make it simplier to see where the point changes did occur. We then could make more informed decisions on where/when to use our points.

[Dean]

When you look at the charts you find that the totals have gone up in a disproportionate amount to what has gone down. By that I mean, any point savings you may have on a weekend does not begin to make up for the increased point costs of weekdays.As you know, I've looked at the charts. The points even out for the year. Some things have gone up and others have gone down. For the example you quote, the 2 BR lockoff and 1 BR portion went down as did many other options. While they did not go down as much as the studio went up, other things did. Plus I don't think that the limitations in the POS apply to the individual components of a lockoff. The way I read it they could have increased that unit alone and made absolutely no compensatory changes and still be within the letter of the Fl statutes and POS.

[DisneyWalker44]

I brought this same point up on this board before. I have not heard a satisfactory response as yet.

Is a total point chart readily available to members for each resort?

I wish/hope that Disney would publish this composite chart each time they reallocate points. Not only because we would like to check on their calculations, although I am sure they are required by law to keep total point allocations per resort the same, but just to make it simplier to see where the point changes did occur. We then could make more informed decisions on where/when to use our points. The problem is that the total point cost allocations do change from year to year. Some years have more/less weekends than others. And even seasons can have more/less weekends in some years than in others. So there is no one, single fixed number of points.

Buried deep in this thread are some calculations. The total number of points is within about 0.5% between the two charts, though the exact difference depends upon which year and resort you look at.

[Dean]

I brought this same point up on this board before. I have not heard a satisfactory response as yet.

Is a total point chart readily available to members for each resort?

I wish/hope that Disney would publish this composite chart each time they reallocate points. Not only because we would like to check on their calculations, although I am sure they are required by law to keep total point allocations per resort the same, but just to make it simplier to see where the point changes did occur. We then could make more informed decisions on where/when to use our points.It's not that difficult to do. You take the number of each room type, ignoring lockoff components, and figure out how many weekdays and weekends are in each season. Then it's a matter of some fairly simple math to figure out how many points it takes to book an entire resort for the year. You have to make a choice of which "Base Year" to use and you'd avoid leap year as the POS states it's taken from a 365 day "Base Year". I used 1992 since that's likely the base year used for OKW and it's unlikely they'd use a different one for other resorts. I got 14,074,776 points with the old points charts and 14,075,811 using the new points charts. A difference of 1035 points for the entire year or less than 0.01% difference. The variance if you chose a different base year is actually far more than is that difference for reasons that DW pointed out above. Some will say but "it's not a zero difference" and that is true but it would more than satisfy any reasonable test thrown at DVC.

DVC is not going to publish this type of data. They are smart enough to know to only give what's necessary and not lead fuel to anyone's fire. Much like explaining rules to a teenage where you just give them points to argue. I do think they would have been well served to provide a very cursory summary of occupancy info related to this issue but I do realize that any data they provide gives competitors a piece of info they can use as well.

[Disney MAINEiac]

as a member who has to travel from a far distance I have complained in the past that weekend points were too high. If we wanted to do a get away for a long holiday weekend the high weekend points were prohibitive. perhaps the realignment will allow us more than one visit per year (say one long family trip and a shorter adults only get away). the way we travel and use our points I just don't see this as a big deal frankly

[Capn Dave]

as a member who has to travel from a far distance I have complained in the past that weekend points were too high. If we wanted to do a get away for a long holiday weekend the high weekend points were prohibitive. perhaps the realignment will allow us more than one visit per year (say one long family trip and a shorter adults only get away). the way we travel and use our points I just don't see this as a big deal frankly

"the way we travel and use our points I just don't see this as a big deal frankly".

HUH ???? This is the whole "point", no pun intended, of using points and the reallocation of same.:confused3

[bcrook]

But Joy did mention that they were just as booked on weekends as weekdays so she dismissed the idea that this point reallocation was done solely to encourage weekend stays.

I think it is interesting that this quote was ignored. This entire thread is based on the argument that there is an imbalance of bookings on the weekends. We have no data to support this. But this quote doesn't support it.

If not to encourage weekend stays, what then? Force people to trim their stays to open up more rooms. I think that is what most people are upset about. Losing nights from their vacations. As Tim said, he might be going 2 six nights instead 3 five nights. That is 3 days less. It may be good for DVC, but it is a sad thing for all of us who enjoy our time on site.

After reading 143 pages on this thread, I am less willing to believe this was done for good of the members now than I was on page 1. :crazy2:

[Dean]

I think it is interesting that this quote was ignored. This entire thread is based on the argument that there is an imbalance of bookings on the weekends. We have no data to support this. But this quote doesn't support it. There is a lot of indirect data to support that weekends in general are more available than weekdays. I would not put much emphasis on the quote you referenced because I believe it to not be correct based on years of accumulative information plus I don't know if it is even a good representation of what was said. One thing I've seen from DVC, and I referenced it earlier, is they are good about making you feel good without actually providing any commitments or even real information. Phrases like "I'm writing this down", "I'll definitely pass it on to management", "others have called with the same concerns", etc. Plus they're also good at making you feel like you're right in such areas. I'm not saying that's bad, it is what it is. We saw it time after time on the thread about reserving 7 days at a time.

[bcrook]

The best place to find any data would be the DVC - Resort Reservation Availability threads. http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2050896

If you look at December 2009 for example, you find weekends dates on the lists as -no availability. Currently the 4th and 5th is the 11th and 12th (weekends are popping up on the thread). Let's just assume that this pattern holds, and weekends are just as booked at weekdays - how does this justify an allocation?

Similar patterns develop in May 2009. Weekend dates are represented in the no availability reports.

I realize this is incomplete data, but it is at least something to work with. I think it supports Joy's statement from DVC and also the idea that weekends are not necessarily deserted wastelands.

People should keep questioning this, and keep calling member services.

[Dean]

The best place to find any data would be the DVC - Resort Reservation Availability threads. http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2050896

If you look at December 2009 for example, you find weekends dates on the lists as -no availability. Currently the 4th and 5th is the 11th and 12th (weekends are popping up on the thread). Let's just assume that this pattern holds, and weekends are just as booked at weekdays - how does this justify an allocation?

Similar patterns develop in May 2009. Weekend dates are represented in the no availability reports.

I realize this is incomplete data, but it is at least something to work with. I think it supports Joy's statement from DVC and also the idea that weekends are not necessarily deserted wastelands.

People should keep questioning this, and keep calling member services.It's very limited data over a fairly short period of time. Eventually it will amass enough info to have more meaning though.

[bcrook]

I am not trying to be argumentative, but based on many planning threads, the data collected on the Resort Reservation Availability thread, and other comments about December all resorts weekdays and weekends are booked up and are hard to find. If that is the case, how could reallocation be justified for that season? I find many inconsistencies like this, and it goes back to the idea that something other than demand is at work here.:confused3

[tjkraz]

I think it is interesting that this quote was ignored. This entire thread is based on the argument that there is an imbalance of bookings on the weekends. We have no data to support this. But this quote doesn't support it.

Without providing any specifics, I had someone further up in the DVC food chain confirm that lagging weekend bookings were very much part of the motivation for this.

I tend to agree with Dean's take on the QA rep's statement. But even if we take it at face value, it was just a general statement about weekend occupancy. It doesn't address whether the occupants were staying on DVC points, 25% member discount (which is only available when DVC projects that points bookings will not fill the resort) or people who booked via the 60-day breakage rules. Saying that a resort is "full" doesn't mean "full of members using their points"--which is the true goal of the system.

As for using the availability reports here to draw any conclusions, that's a pretty flawed method. Instead of looking at December '09--which is 10 months away--look at March. There are nearly 100 date/room combinations reported as full at AKV, but the only weekends among those are:

Value Studio 6, 27
Standard Studio 27
Standard 2B 20, 21
Savanna Studio 27
Concierge Studio 27
Conceirge 2B 20, 21

That's 8 of 91 (8%) reported full dates being weekends. BWV is 15%. VWL is 0%. Weekends are 29% of our week. :confused3

[Chuck S]

Remember that we have no way of verifying the info submitted to the availability threads, and that availability changes. There could now be more weekend availability, some folks may have cancelled and/or some of the info could have been submitted while others were "walking" a reservation, thus holding rooms they didn't really want.

[Dean]

I am not trying to be argumentative, but based on many planning threads, the data collected on the Resort Reservation Availability thread, and other comments about December all resorts weekdays and weekends are booked up and are hard to find. If that is the case, how could reallocation be justified for that season? I find many inconsistencies like this, and it goes back to the idea that something other than demand is at work here.:confused3You're not being argumentative at all. Do realize that December is an novelty that is unlikely to be representative. Plus we don't know when the days booked up or whether those members really got what they wanted, which would ultimately be important to make any absolute judgments. Plus I think it's very obvious that one of the changes that might help even out some of this demand is to change the seasons for December totally to likely Dream as a minimum and possibly expand the premier further and/or make at least part of it magic. NO system and no change to a system will be perfect for everyone. In some cases the change will benefit some and hurt others, in some situations it may benefit the system and hurt the owners or vice versa. Even if Dec weren't a problem at all, DVC needs some consistency so it's likely they'd change that time with all the rest that were more out of balance. It is unfortunate we don't have real data any more. The State of FL used to require resorts to publish such data but that stopped in 1995 or 1996.

[BroganMc]

plus I don't know if it is even a good representation of what was said.

Uh Dean, I would hope you aren't implying I was less than truthful about the quote. I did not reconstruct her words. She specifically said "we're booked on weekends too". The exact conversation was me saying "I understand DVC needs to balance demand but was disturbed by the changing of the weekly points" and her answering with the comment that weekends were booking as readily as weekdays.

I was taken aback by the comment myself for I assumed, like many here, that weekend nights being unbooked is the norm and the driving force for the point reallocation. Her comment led me to believe something else. I didn't grill her on the subject though. I was more intent on wanting to get the data for the point allocation math.

Until we have access to DVC's booking figures I'd caution anyone to presume what it actually is. All we know for certain is that DVC claimed the point allocation was done to meet member requests. For all we know, it was less about demand and more about complaints that weekend points were double the cost of weekdays. Joy did mention that was a frequent complaint among members to her, at least.

[LIFERBABE]

Well I will throw this anecdoctal data in.

I just booked THV today for Christmas/NYE 2009

At first I just booked the weeknights because the Fri/Sat were 95 pts each. Surely there would be weekend nights available later at that hi cost. No they are almost sold out! I went ahead and booked it.

This is the 2009 point chart, no developer points are in play for that time and demand is definitely there even with the double point requirement.

[TisBit]

Without providing any specifics, I had someone further up in the DVC food chain confirm that lagging weekend bookings were very much part of the motivation for this.

I tend to agree with Dean's take on the QA rep's statement. But even if we take it at face value, it was just a general statement about weekend occupancy. It doesn't address whether the occupants were staying on DVC points, 25% member discount (which is only available when DVC projects that points bookings will not fill the resort) or people who booked via the 60-day breakage rules. Saying that a resort is "full" doesn't mean "full of members using their points"--which is the true goal of the system.

As for using the availability reports here to draw any conclusions, that's a pretty flawed method. Instead of looking at December '09--which is 10 months away--look at March. There are nearly 100 date/room combinations reported as full at AKV, but the only weekends among those are:

Value Studio 6, 27
Standard Studio 27
Standard 2B 20, 21
Savanna Studio 27
Concierge Studio 27
Conceirge 2B 20, 21

That's 8 of 91 (8%) reported full dates being weekends. BWV is 15%. VWL is 0%. Weekends are 29% of our week. :confused3

I was going to point out the same thing, you can't pull one out of 12 months data and use it solely to justify your position. You need to use the availabilities boards full data for all months and then make a determination and still keep in mind that it could be skewed.

Brogan I think the truth is that there were a number of reasons for the reallocation, none of which is the overwhelming reason. If you look at what they did during the reallocation, they shifted points in the room sizes, obviously to help adjust bookings between studios through grand villas, they shifted weekends, to help there...and they even shifted resorts, probably to help create demand at different resorts during different times of the year.

[Dean]

Uh Dean, I would hope you aren't implying I was less than truthful about the quote. I did not reconstruct her words. She specifically said "we're booked on weekends too". The exact conversation was me saying "I understand DVC needs to balance demand but was disturbed by the changing of the weekly points" and her answering with the comment that weekends were booking as readily as weekdays.

I was taken aback by the comment myself for I assumed, like many here, that weekend nights being unbooked is the norm and the driving force for the point reallocation. Her comment led me to believe something else. I didn't grill her on the subject though. I was more intent on wanting to get the data for the point allocation math.

Until we have access to DVC's booking figures I'd caution anyone to presume what it actually is. All we know for certain is that DVC claimed the point allocation was done to meet member requests. For all we know, it was less about demand and more about complaints that weekend points were double the cost of weekdays. Joy did mention that was a frequent complaint among members to her, at least.Certainly no reference to your intention but rather what was intended vs what was said by DVC and what was heard by you that might not have been as intended. Given we're unlikely to have access to this info, I guess we'll get to keep beating each other up over it. If you were told that there was no difference, then you were simply told wrong but unfortunately I don't have a way to prove it to you. Plus you have to look at the entire year and not just one month. It's entirely possible that some of the times didn't need to be changed but DVC would have changed them anyway to keep the same formula. Still, there are other factors which included when those times were booked and HOW they were booked plus whether people got what they wanted when they called to make reservations.

As I was looking through the RCI info today I realized that it's entirely possible that one of the factors involved could have been DVC's need to match up to the RCI points formulas for weekend/weekdays.

[bcrook]

I was going to point out the same thing, you can't pull one out of 12 months data and use it solely to justify your position. You need to use the availabilities boards full data for all months and then make a determination and still keep in mind that it could be skewed.

I understand about not selecting data that fits an argument. My point is simply this... IF the entire month of December is booked up weekdays and weekends, then you can't use the argument that usage patterns are behind the point shifts for that month or season. So, December vacation plans have been tampered with because March needs an adjustment. I think that is odd.

I would think the first steps for this reallocation would have been to address the high demand for December by moving it to Dream or Magic season along with the other seasonal adjustments like F&W etc.. The seasonal adjustments would make sense.

I don't think it would be fair to change the points charts simply because people complain that the weekends are too high. There was a solid reason for setting the points charts up the way they were, hundreds of thousands people bought their points based on their charts, and then the charts were changed dramatically.

When the planning guides come out soon, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of shocked people. It is still worth our time to pursue answers on this. What are the long term goals? Many people have speculated on the next moves.

[bcrook]

As I was looking through the RCI info today I realized that it's entirely possible that one of the factors involved could have been DVC's need to match up to the RCI points formulas for weekend/weekdays.

That would be logical. If that was given for the reason at the onset, I don't think I would have complained at all. Somebody from DVC will read that post and use that in their next round of explanations.

You have put a lot of energy and thought into this entire thread/topic Dean. I appreciate all of your comments. :thumbsup2

[Dean]

I understand about not selecting data that fits an argument. My point is simply this... IF the entire month of December is booked up weekdays and weekends, then you can't use the argument that usage patterns are behind the point shifts for that month or season. So, December vacation plans have been tampered with because March needs an adjustment. DVC needs a formula for weekends to weekdays, there needs to be consistency. If only one month were out, they wouldn't change anything in all likelihood. One or two months that are not out will still be included in the change. This change wouldn't hurt a month that's OK anyway.

That would be logical. If that was given for the reason at the onset, I don't think I would have complained at all. Somebody from DVC will read that post and use that in their next round of explanations.

You have put a lot of energy and thought into this entire thread/topic Dean. I appreciate all of your comments. :thumbsup2As I said, one possible issue but I doubt the main one. Not a problem on the effort as it is the type of thread I enjoy.

[DisneyWalker44]

how does this justify an allocation? The reallocation is based on the fact that demand is greater for weekdays than for weekends. That doesn't mean the weekends are deserted wastelands that never get booked.

Weekdays do have more demand than weekends. I can't imagine any long-time DVC owner questioning that (unless they never try to book weekends). I've called many times and been told they have only some of the days I'm looking for. In those situations, weekends are always more available. I've read about and seen the situation over and over.

If you want to call and fight about the way the reallocation was introduced, have at it. If you want to fight and call and say the imbalance wasn't enough to justify the disruption, have at it. If you want to fight and call to say owners should be given some sort of accommodation to help deal with the reallocation (small add-ons etc.) have at it.

But if you want to fight and call to claim there was no imbalance, I guarantee you are wasting your time.

[bcrook]

The reallocation is based on the fact that demand is greater for weekdays than for weekends. That doesn't mean the weekends are deserted wastelands that never get booked.

Weekdays do have more demand than weekends. I can't imagine any long-time DVC owner questioning that (unless they never try to book weekends). I've called many times and been told they have only some of the days I'm looking for. In those situations, weekends are always more available. I've read about and seen the situation over and over.

If you want to call and fight about the way the reallocation was introduced, have at it. If you want to fight and call and say the imbalance wasn't enough to justify the disruption, have at it. If you want to fight and call to say owners should be given some sort of accommodation to help deal with the reallocation (small add-ons etc.) have at it.

But if you want to fight and call to claim there was no imbalance, I guarantee you are wasting your time.

I was referring to a quote from a DVC employee who dismissed the idea that weekday demand accounts for the change. I also made the point that that if the Month of December is totally booked based on current charts, why would December weekday/weekend points be changed.

But is it really true that weekdays are difficult to get at all resorts and for all seasons? Are SSR 2 bedrooms always full during the week in July and August and November? Is OKW difficult to book S-F in April or June? I haven't had any trouble booking anything at less than 7 months. Last year I was at HHI in early June and lots of the two bedroom units were empty during the week.

I think most of the difficult booking situations occur with the special and hard to get locations. I imagine all the Studios are going to be hard to secure now for all days and all seasons because that is the easiest way to conserve points. I stayed at a Studio last summer at BCV and vowed I would never settle for less than a 1 bedroom ever again. So I will have to cut days from my trips.

[BWV Dreamin]

The reallocation is based on the fact that demand is greater for weekdays than for weekends. That doesn't mean the weekends are deserted wastelands that never get booked.

Weekdays do have more demand than weekends. I can't imagine any long-time DVC owner questioning that (unless they never try to book weekends). I've called many times and been told they have only some of the days I'm looking for. In those situations, weekends are always more available. I've read about and seen the situation over and over.

If you want to call and fight about the way the reallocation was introduced, have at it. If you want to fight and call and say the imbalance wasn't enough to justify the disruption, have at it. If you want to fight and call to say owners should be given some sort of accommodation to help deal with the reallocation (small add-ons etc.) have at it.

But if you want to fight and call to claim there was no imbalance, I guarantee you are wasting your time.
Not to keep playing the same 'ole record, but NO ONE KNOWS why Disney reallocated the points chart. There are just way too many exceptions to all of the proposed theories already stated umpteen times. One thing I have noticed....I have noticed posters stating they will be adding on, if not now, in the near future! I have maintained there is a monetary reason behind the change...and my assumption is coming to fruition!:wizard:

[tjkraz]

I was referring to a quote from a DVC employee who dismissed the idea that weekday demand accounts for the change. I also made the point that that if the Month of December is totally booked based on current charts, why would December weekday/weekend points be changed.

There are three different seasons spread throughout the month of December and each of them would have to be viewed as a whole. It doesn't so much matter what Dec 1-14 trends look like as much as all of Adventure Season which also includes September and January.

That said, the adjustments to weekday / weekend ratios appear to be global and not based upon history with each individual season and/or resort. I suspect there is a sound statistical basis for using that approach.

But is it really true that weekdays are difficult to get at all resorts and for all seasons? Are SSR 2 bedrooms always full during the week in July and August and November? Is OKW difficult to book S-F in April or June? I haven't had any trouble booking anything at less than 7 months. Last year I was at HHI in early June and lots of the two bedroom units were empty during the week.

Weekdays don't have to be at 100% occupancy year-round to justify the change. As long as bookings are weighted toward the weekday it's still justified.

I think most of the difficult booking situations occur with the special and hard to get locations. I imagine all the Studios are going to be hard to secure now for all days and all seasons because that is the easiest way to conserve points. I stayed at a Studio last summer at BCV and vowed I would never settle for less than a 1 bedroom ever again. So I will have to cut days from my trips.

I don't think it would be fair to draw any conclusions about how people will respond at this point. Not all members are negatively impacted and those who are will have several options available to them.

[tjkraz]

Not to keep playing the same 'ole record, but NO ONE KNOWS why Disney reallocated the points chart.

According to DVC it was:

"To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays..."

and

"...to better [reflect] the changes in Members' vacationing patterns..."

Unless proven otherwise, I'm willing to take that information at face value.

There are just way too many exceptions to all of the proposed theories already stated umpteen times. One thing I have noticed....I have noticed posters stating they will be adding on, if not now, in the near future! I have maintained there is a monetary reason behind the change...and my assumption is coming to fruition!:wizard:

True, but additional sales are only half of the story. We've also had member say they are considering selling, members who have said they will no longer recommend DVC to friends/family/strangers when asked, and DVC will certainly lose some new sales they would have otherwise gotten simply because 160 points no longer goes as far as it did before.

Whether or not this ends up being a net gain for DVC is completely unknown.

Welcome to the Flawed Theory Club, Hope! :goodvibes

[BWV Dreamin]

According to DVC it was:

"To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays..."

and

"...to better [reflect] the changes in Members' vacationing patterns..."

Unless proven otherwise, I'm willing to take that information at face value.



True, but additional sales are only half of the story. We've also had member say they are considering selling, members who have said they will no longer recommend DVC to friends/family/strangers when asked, and DVC will certainly lose some new sales they would have otherwise gotten simply because 160 points no longer goes as far as it did before.

Whether or not this ends up being a net gain for DVC is completely unknown.

Welcome to the Flawed Theory Club, Hope! :goodvibes
Well you just do that........:laughing:

[tjkraz]

Well you just do that........:laughing:

Is there some reason I shouldn't?

A lot of people have asked for lower weekend points over the years. My own observations suggest that the points were out of balance. Both DVC's statement and a conversation with someone inside corroborates that.

Occam's Razor. Given our inability to disprove DVC's statements, the simplest explanation may just be the correct one.

[Dean]

Well you just do that........:laughing:If I wasn't willing to accept it I'd either move on, selling my points or challenge them formally with a state complaint and/or a legal challenge. Given the mass change from DVC is so great, to "you can't trust them", I'm surprised we aren't seeing mass postings that many plan to sell now. I've seen a number of postings that essentially say if anything else happens, they'll sell. Personally I separate out the sales process from the management process. IF I felt the way some do about some of these changes and the motivation, I would not cont to be a member. Complaining on this or similar BBS or Email lists or even calling DVC MS and complaining is not going to get anything done. If one truly wanted to find out the info and/or push for a change back, there are ways to do so.

[DisneyWalker44]

I was referring to a quote from a DVC employee who dismissed the idea that weekday demand accounts for the change. With all due respect, I believe you are referring to a paraphrase, not a quote, and even the paraphrase was not what you seem to think. Please go back and check - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I also made the point that that if the Month of December is totally booked based on current charts, why would December weekday/weekend points be changed. Weekends and weekdays can have different levels of demand and still get fully booked.

But is it really true that weekdays are difficult to get at all resorts and for all seasons? As far as I know, nobody has made that claim. The claim is simply that weekday demand is greater than weekend.

[Disney MAINEiac]

"the way we travel and use our points I just don't see this as a big deal frankly".

HUH ???? This is the whole "point", no pun intended, of using points and the reallocation of same.:confused3

perhaps I didn't phrase this clearly, for us I see the reallocation as a positive which might allow us to get more use of our points. If that turns out to be the case (I haven't seen the actual final points chart yet) it won't be a big deal (read not something negative) for us. I think this will turn out to be a tempest in a tea pot.

[TisBit]

I understand about not selecting data that fits an argument. My point is simply this... IF the entire month of December is booked up weekdays and weekends, then you can't use the argument that usage patterns are behind the point shifts for that month or season. So, December vacation plans have been tampered with because March needs an adjustment. I think that is odd.

I would think the first steps for this reallocation would have been to address the high demand for December by moving it to Dream or Magic season along with the other seasonal adjustments like F&W etc.. The seasonal adjustments would make sense.

I don't think it would be fair to change the points charts simply because people complain that the weekends are too high. There was a solid reason for setting the points charts up the way they were, hundreds of thousands people bought their points based on their charts, and then the charts were changed dramatically.

When the planning guides come out soon, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of shocked people. It is still worth our time to pursue answers on this. What are the long term goals? Many people have speculated on the next moves.

I personally think that as others have suggested, we have to be careful thinking that the reallocation is over with. I wouldn't be surprised if DVC has some ideas on future adjustments, possibly seasonal adjustments that they are holding off on in order not to create an even larger uproar. This if they adjusted seasons and points this time around.

While December might not be the issue, what about the other months in that same season? If December is booked regardless of weekend/weekday points, but the other times in the same season aren't, it would be equally unfair not to adjust a season that has problems in all but one month. Plus, as Dean has already pointed out, there has to be some pattern to point usage. I don't see DVC making weekends cheap in one season and expensive in another, but rather that there is some rhyme or reason to how many points are needed for weekends vs weekdays throughout the year.

[DVC Mike]

This was finally mentioned in the Orlando Sentinel this morning:


The Walt Disney Co.'s time-share arm is trying to steer more of its customers into spending weekend nights in its resorts.

Disney Vacation Club, which sells real-estate interests expressed as "points" that guests redeem for nights in its time-share resorts, last month overhauled its point structure to lower the cost of weekend nights and raise the price of weekday nights.

Disney said it is trying to spread the demand more evenly throughout the week. The company had previously required close to twice as many points for Friday and Saturday nights as it had for Sunday through Thursday nights, which had prompted particularly heavy weeknight reservations.

Weekend nights will still be more expensive than weekday nights, but the disparity won't be as wide.

State law allows time-share operators to reallocate points through the year, so long as the total number of points remains the same. Disney said the total point-cost for a full week is largely unaffected by its changes, because the shifts made to the weekend and weekday rates offset each other.

[BWV Dreamin]

If I wasn't willing to accept it I'd either move on, selling my points or challenge them formally with a state complaint and/or a legal challenge. Given the mass change from DVC is so great, to "you can't trust them", I'm surprised we aren't seeing mass postings that many plan to sell now. I've seen a number of postings that essentially say if anything else happens, they'll sell. Personally I separate out the sales process from the management process. IF I felt the way some do about some of these changes and the motivation, I would not cont to be a member. Complaining on this or similar BBS or Email lists or even calling DVC MS and complaining is not going to get anything done. If one truly wanted to find out the info and/or push for a change back, there are ways to do so.
As always, I respect your thoughtful opinion. And while I would love to fully buy into this thought, the end result is that it is more expensive as a whole for members to continue to vacation with their points at hand. Further realloclation will continue this trend....the only way to compensate for the changes, and maintain current vacation habits, is to increase or add-on points. Shifting members to include one or both weekends will not save or maintain the current members vacation points needed. So call it what you will, the end result does not change.....members will need more points, our current timeshare is not the same value as before the points reallocation. No denying this.....:sad2:

[tjkraz]

...the end result is that it is more expensive as a whole for members to continue to vacation with their points at hand.

This part of your statement is mathematically impossible. Since the total number of points in a resort cannot change, for every increase there was an offsetting decrease. Some members will get the same value they always did. Some will get a lower value. Some will get a better value. It all depends on how people use their points.

[palhockeymomof2]

As always, I respect your thoughtful opinion. And while I would love to fully buy into this thought, the end result is that it is more expensive as a whole for members to continue to vacation with their points at hand. Further realloclation will continue this trend....the only way to compensate for the changes, and maintain current vacation habits, is to increase or add-on points. Shifting members to include one or both weekends will not save or maintain the current members vacation points needed. So call it what you will, the end result does not change.....members will need more points, our current timeshare is not the same value as before the points reallocation. No denying this.....:sad2:

maybe I'm missing something...but for us after comparing the 2009 and 2010 point charts...looking at different vacations we have taken or may take......our points needed for various trips vary a few points for the week up or down.... in the some cases..our F & W trip which is usually 2 weeknights & 2 weekend dates....has gone down more than a few points....so I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation......since everyones vacation habits are different... I also have no need to add on points and don't see any decrease in my DVC value......I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points...but looking at 7 night stays the differences seem to be up or down a few points

[BWV Dreamin]

maybe I'm missing something...but for us after comparing the 2009 and 2010 point charts...looking at different vacations we have taken or may take......our points needed for various trips vary a few points for the week up or down.... in the some cases..our F & W trip which is usually 2 weeknights & 2 weekend dates....has gone down more than a few points....so I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation......since everyones vacation habits are different... I also have no need to add on points and don't see any decrease in my DVC value......I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points...but looking at 7 night stays the differences seem to be up or down a few points
That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive.

[BWV Dreamin]

This part of your statement is mathematically impossible. Since the total number of points in a resort cannot change, for every increase there was an offsetting decrease. Some members will get the same value they always did. Some will get a lower value. Some will get a better value. It all depends on how people use their points.
My comment is not disputing this....it states that the reallocation has made it more expensive for members to vacation with their current vacation habits with the points that they currently own. Again, based on the overwhelming comments, this has been a negative impact on members.

[bevis]

For those of you that still don't believe weekends are not as in demand as weekdays, just a little question. Has anyone asked Bell Services staff what particular days are busier with people CHECKING OUT vs. CHECKING IN? I think they would have a better handle on arrival/departure than most.
Again, folks leaving vs. folks coming in, not just how busy overall.
I know this is, of course, anecdotal, as is most of this whole discussion, but the Bell staff will have a great feel for this.
Also, this in particular may have come up before as I know I've seen polls about what days people check in/out, but I dont know if that would be quite as "accurate" for DVC members as a whole as opposed to just those on the DIS boards.

Anyone reading that is there now?

[tjkraz]

My comment is not disputing this....it states that the reallocation has made it more expensive for members to vacation with their current vacation habits with the points that they currently own. Again, based on the overwhelming comments, this has been a negative impact on members.

In reality there probably are more individuals who are upset by the change than those who are happy with it. If so, that fact is what defines the need for the reallocation. Under the 2009 charts approximately 55% of a week's points were spread over the Sun - Thurs timeframe. If members are collectively attempting to use more than 55% of their points for Sun - Thurs, then that is exactly why this change was needed.

As for the win/lose/draw breakout among members, we really have no way of quantifying that. Whether Fri / Sat occupancy is 50% or 75% or 95%, every person who uses points for those weekend nights will benefit from the reallocation.

If every single DVC point is used in 2009 and every single DVC point is used in 2010, the net result is the same. Individual members will pay more or less depending upon their vacation habits, but for every loser there MUST BE a winner.

Sure the comments posted to this thread have been mostly negative...as is the case with most discussions of this ilk. There is little motivation for people to post "I'm happy with this change" comments....instead we just get page-after-page of "I'm mad as h*ll at this change" comments.

It's no different than discussing room cleanliness, quality of bus service, member perks, changes to member policies, etc. The people who feel they have been wronged drive the discussion while those with a different viewpoint typically sit on the sidelines.

[Anal Annie]

maybe I'm missing something...but for us after comparing the 2009 and 2010 point charts...looking at different vacations we have taken or may take......our points needed for various trips vary a few points for the week up or down.... in the some cases..our F & W trip which is usually 2 weeknights & 2 weekend dates....has gone down more than a few points....so I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation......since everyones vacation habits are different... I also have no need to add on points and don't see any decrease in my DVC value......I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points...but looking at 7 night stays the differences seem to be up or down a few points

You are getting off lucky. It is pretty much a negative impact on any trip that is less than 7 nights. Personally, the impact it will have on us is that after we plan the rest of the 3 trips that we WERE going to plan instead of having 18 points left to bank we will be 3 points SHORT. One trip goes up by 10 points for 5 nights and the other goes up by 11 points for 6 nights. And the same trip we've already planned for this summer would cost us 6 more points in 2010. In comparison, we're getting off easy. There are some people who for years & years USED to be able to vacation for a full week in a given size unit during a given season for 350 points and now they need 352 points. So they're now 2 points short!! That's awful because they thought they needed 350 points so that's what they bought. NOW they either need to shave a night off their trip, downsize a unit OR shell out more money for a 25 point add-on to fulfill this 2 point shortage. How would you feel if you've been taking the same vacation for 10 years and now all of a sudden you've got this lousy 2 point shortage to deal with? Not happy I'm pretty sure. I'm glad that we've only been members for a couple of years and have not established this set vacation pattern - it's hard enough to swallow being new.

[tjkraz]

You are getting off lucky. It is pretty much a negative impact on any trip that is less than 7 nights.

That's not a very accurate generalization.

A trip of Monday - Saturday (6 nights) is cheaper under the new system.

A trip of Thursday - Sunday (4 nights) is cheaper.

A trip of Wednesday - Monday (6 nights) is cheaper.

Better to say that a trip of less than 7 nights with fewer than 2 weekend nights is now more expensive.


There are some people who for years & years USED to be able to vacation for a full week in a given size unit during a given season for 350 points and now they need 352 points. So they're now 2 points short!! That's awful because they thought they needed 350 points so that's what they bought. NOW they either need to shave a night off their trip, downsize a unit OR shell out more money for a 25 point add-on to fulfill this 2 point shortage.

Or they could just borrow the 2 points every year and it won't catch up with them until the final year of ownership (assuming they even keep the contract for another 30-50 years.) :confused3

[palhockeymomof2]

That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive.

yes your right I was referring to our particular situation...as most posters on this thread have done..... I rechecked the point requirements for our trips after reading your post stating that "the reallocation made it more expensive for members has a whole to vacation".......I thought I had looked at the new charts wrong when figuring out points needed for our trips.....everyone vacations differently...so the reallocation will affect everyone in a different manner....I totally understand the frustration of those who have been negatively affected.....

[palhockeymomof2]

You are getting off lucky. It is pretty much a negative impact on any trip that is less than 7 nights. Personally, the impact it will have on us is that after we plan the rest of the 3 trips that we WERE going to plan instead of having 18 points left to bank we will be 3 points SHORT. One trip goes up by 10 points for 5 nights and the other goes up by 11 points for 6 nights. And the same trip we've already planned for this summer would cost us 6 more points in 2010. In comparison, we're getting off easy. There are some people who for years & years USED to be able to vacation for a full week in a given size unit during a given season for 350 points and now they need 352 points. So they're now 2 points short!! That's awful because they thought they needed 350 points so that's what they bought. NOW they either need to shave a night off their trip, downsize a unit OR shell out more money for a 25 point add-on to fulfill this 2 point shortage. How would you feel if you've been taking the same vacation for 10 years and now all of a sudden you've got this lousy 2 point shortage to deal with? Not happy I'm pretty sure. I'm glad that we've only been members for a couple of years and have not established this set vacation pattern - it's hard enough to swallow being new.

actually the 2 points short situation your referring to is our situation for our
August trip in a 2br villa....honestly it does not bother me...we'll borrow the 2 points...we've been members for 8 years now..sometime borrowing, sometimes banking points.....so for me borrowing is not a big deal.....but I do understand that everyone is different and it may not be what someone else would like to do

[bub]

You are getting off lucky. It is pretty much a negative impact on any trip that is less than 7 nights. Personally, the impact it will have on us is that after we plan the rest of the 3 trips that we WERE going to plan instead of having 18 points left to bank we will be 3 points SHORT. One trip goes up by 10 points for 5 nights and the other goes up by 11 points for 6 nights. And the same trip we've already planned for this summer would cost us 6 more points in 2010. In comparison, we're getting off easy. There are some people who for years & years USED to be able to vacation for a full week in a given size unit during a given season for 350 points and now they need 352 points. So they're now 2 points short!! That's awful because they thought they needed 350 points so that's what they bought. NOW they either need to shave a night off their trip, downsize a unit OR shell out more money for a 25 point add-on to fulfill this 2 point shortage. How would you feel if you've been taking the same vacation for 10 years and now all of a sudden you've got this lousy 2 point shortage to deal with? Not happy I'm pretty sure. I'm glad that we've only been members for a couple of years and have not established this set vacation pattern - it's hard enough to swallow being new.


I fall into the group that tends to vacation at the same time each year, for about the same amount of time. Jobs and school schedules don't allow us to be too flexible. I also fall into the group whose usual week has gone up in points, so even though we have stayed one or two weekend nights on our past several trips, with these changes we will now need to cut back on the number of days we stay. So, not a happy camper, and even less happy to have to learn of this change on these boards, since I never received an email (though I used to).

A few in this discussion seem to indicate that those of us who are disappointed in the change are wrong, since Disney had the right to do this, and we should have anticipated it. Maybe so, but as no changes were made in the 13 years that I have been an owner, I have gotten used to the current point schedules.

Maybe it's true that I should have purchased a week-based timeshare, but I bought Disney because it is Disney and I want to stay on property...I have no interest in any other timeshare. It's true that I don't have lots of points...we bought in as a family group and share some of the points. Up until now that has not been a problem (even with some like us staying on weekends). Now most of us will be a few points short. Adding on is not an option...with two kids approaching college age, vacations are important, but I do like to live within my means.

So in the end, I am part of the group that will stay fewer days and make fewer trips. Like almost everything else financial in my life days, the value of my Disney points has gone down. (Admittedly, this is just my situation.)

Thanks to Brogan for presenting the point of view of many of us on these boards to the CM from Disney. And, even though I am waiting to see how this benefits me, thanks to tjkraz and Dean for trying to make us see Disney's side of the change.

One more thing...while it's great to have these boards to share ideas and opinions, as I keep reading through this 145 page thread, I can't help but feel that limiting discussion of this change (which is major to some) to one thread feels as though we're all stuck in a little soundproof room together, when some of us just want to scream.:scared1: It seems to minimize the impact of the change on many members' vacations. (And the moderators are saying, that screaming thing is exactly why we have put you all together!)

[White_Sox_Fan]

A few in this discussion seem to indicate that those of us who are disappointed in the change are wrong, since Disney had the right to do this, and we should have anticipated it. Maybe so, but as no changes were made in the 13 years that I have been an owner, I have gotten used to the current point schedules.


I don't know if anyone is saying that anyone is wrong for being upset about the change. Most of the conflicts are about the right to reeallocate, the need to reallocate, the balance of the reallocation, etc.

[MiaSRN62]

Originally Posted by palhockeymomof2
maybe I'm missing something...but for us after comparing the 2009 and 2010 point charts...looking at different vacations we have taken or may take......our points needed for various trips vary a few points for the week up or down.... in the some cases..our F & W trip which is usually 2 weeknights & 2 weekend dates....has gone down more than a few points....so I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation......since everyones vacation habits are different... I also have no need to add on points and don't see any decrease in my DVC value......I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points...but looking at 7 night stays the differences seem to be up or down a few points


That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive.


Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something. My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs. That's 30 points short every single year for us.


Anyone reading that is there now?
Today 10:48 AM

beavis....I was at SSR Wed and Thurs....and hung around for several hours on Friday. I can't say I spoke with Bellhop, but I can definitely say there was a HUGE difference in the lobby check-in area on friday. It was much more crowded on Friday than it was on Wed or Thurs. We walked right up to the desk and checked in at 4 pm on Wed---only 3 other parties there. On Friday, there was a line to check-in (around 2-3 pm ). I'd say maybe 12-15 parties checking in when we passed by a few times. Just an observation....nothing scientific. I'm at POP now............

[Sabor]

My comment is not disputing this....it states that the reallocation has made it more expensive for members to vacation with their current vacation habits with the points that they currently own. Again, based on the overwhelming comments, this has been a negative impact on members.

You cannot judge the majority of DVC members by those on these boards. As a genreal rule the people that post on this site are more savvy just by the fact they research about their vacations. By doing this they get all the tricks of the trade and either learn how to or are already manipulating thier vactaion habits to the system to maximize their time.

Most people really are not like most of us who patrol these boards.

I would wager that the Sun-Thurs traveler is large enough that something needed to be done to balance the system but are not the huge majority that they think they are.

[palhockeymomof2]

[QUOTE=MiaSRN62;30193272]Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something. My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs. That's 30 points short every single year for us.


I was responding to BWV dreamin's post a page or so back. that stated .. with the reallocation vacations were more expensive for members as a whole....I thought I had missed something in figuring out the number of points needed for our trips...trying to see how our vacations would be more expensive...since I thought I had calculated that on one trip the points needed would be 2 more and on another a few less.....I had figured out our points correctly......I get that for any trips booked for 5 week nights the points required per trip when up....and I understand your frustration..30 points... ugh

[tjkraz]

Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something. My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs. That's 30 points short every single year for us.

What exactly is palhockeymomof2 "missing"? All she said is that she is not impacted by the reallocation for some trips and for others will benefit. As a statement of fact, those comments are no different than others' frequent reminders that they are impacted. :confused3

She also specifically said "I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points..."

This statement would also be accurate: "...I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation..." Since the total points cannot change, she is quite correct that the net impact to members is zero. Individual members will undeniably win or lose, but as a whole nothing has changed.

Sounds to me like palhockeymomof2 has a good grasp of the situation.

[BWV Dreamin]

[quote=MiaSRN62;30193272]Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something. My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs. That's 30 points short every single year for us.


I was responding to BWV dreamin's post a page or so back. that stated .. with the reallocation vacations were more expensive for members as a whole....I thought I had missed something in figuring out the number of points needed for our trips...trying to see how our vacations would be more expensive...since I thought I had calculated that on one trip the points needed would be 2 more and on another a few less.....I had figured out our points correctly......I get that for any trips booked for 5 week nights the points required per trip when up....and I understand your frustration..30 points... ugh
For those that book 7 days at a time, preferably, 7 days that include a total weekend, the totals do only change 2,4,pts. etc. per WEEK. However, this timeshare is a flexible timeshare, not based on WEEK vacation stays, and not based on Sun-Sat stays at that. Yes, many vacation that way, many do not, and is why they chose a point based system. So if that flexiblility encompasses 2, 3, 4 day stays, the points re-allocations have now cost you more points to vacation. I understand where your comments were coming from.....:wizard:

[BWV Dreamin]

Forums like this are great resources for data. Yes, one is correct in stating that DISBOARDS does not reflect the general membership as a whole, yet it does reach every segment of membership, and the data here is a valuable tool. You can bet "the man" does read these boards!!:goodvibes

[MiaSRN62]

As a genreal rule the people that post on this site are more savvy just by the fact they research about their vacations. By doing this they get all the tricks of the trade and either learn how to or are already manipulating thier vactaion habits to the system to maximize their time.


There are MANY people I know that do whatever they can to maximise their vacations who are not on these boards too. I even know cash paying guests who do this. They don't book weekend nights at POP because it's $10 extra....they book in value season....etc

The whole "manipulating" word bothers me a little in your post sabor. My husband and I became Members in Aug 2000. We purchased as many points as we felt we needed to do a Sun-Thurs stay. We explained to our guide, that we had an offsite timeshare and HAD to stay weekend to weekend there. So we had no use for staying weekends with DVC. So I don't feel we "manipulated" anything. We knew we wanted and neeed Sun thru Thurs so that is what we purchased and that is what we have used. No manipulation there. I will say, now with this reallocation, dvc will force us to do some manipulating. So beginning in 2010, yes...we will be manipulating to maximise our vacation (i.e., booking smaller units and switching over to larger ones during the weeknights we stay). But for the past 9 years, we have not done this. We vacationed as we had planned from the very beginning. But starting 2010, we will have to get a little more crafy.....;)

[MiaSRN62]

BWV Dreamin : and is why they chose a point based system. So if that flexiblility

This is it in a nutshell. We chose DVC for #1) ability to stay onsite/perks #2) flexibility !

[palhockeymomof2]

Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something. My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs. That's 30 points short every single year for us.



beavis....I was at SSR Wed and Thurs....and hung around for several hours on Friday. I can't say I spoke with Bellhop, but I can definitely say there was a HUGE difference in the lobby check-in area on friday. It was much more crowded on Friday than it was on Wed or Thurs. We walked right up to the desk and checked in at 4 pm on Wed---only 3 other parties there. On Friday, there was a line to check-in (around 2-3 pm ). I'd say maybe 12-15 parties checking in when we passed by a few times. Just an observation....nothing scientific. I'm at POP now............

What exactly is palhockeymomof2 "missing"? All she said is that she is not impacted by the reallocation for some trips and for others will benefit. As a statement of fact, those comments are no different than others' frequent reminders that they are impacted. :confused3

She also specifically said "I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points..."

This statement would also be accurate: "...I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation..." Since the total points cannot change, she is quite correct that the net impact to members is zero. Individual members will undeniably win or lose, but as a whole nothing has changed.

Sounds to me like palhockeymomof2 has a good grasp of the situation.

Thanks tjkraz,,,,I thought I understood the system & situation....had to double check my calculations though

[logan115]

Please forgive me for not going thru all 146 pages of posts (I'm guessing it's embedded somewhere in this thread but I gave up after a while :lmao: ), but could someone please post the link that has the 2010 point charts ?

Thanks,

Chris

[BWV Dreamin]

Please forgive me for not going thru all 146 pages of posts (I'm guessing it's embedded somewhere in this thread but I gave up after a while :lmao: ), but could someone please post the link that has the 2010 point charts ?

Thanks,

Chris
www.dvcnews.com (http://www.dvcnews.com)

[logan115]

www.dvcnews.com (http://www.dvcnews.com)


Thanks Dreamin - and to think I was just hoping to have an answer by the time I got home tonite. When will I figure out that DIS really stands for Data In Seconds :rotfl:

Chris

[drusba]

Please forgive me for not going thru all 146 pages of posts (I'm guessing it's embedded somewhere in this thread but I gave up after a while :lmao: ), but could someone please post the link that has the 2010 point charts ?

The one I like was posted by a member who created comparison charts where one chart for each site shows both 2009 and 2010 points needed: http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081

[BWV Dreamin]

Thanks Dreamin - and to think I was just hoping to have an answer by the time I got home tonite. When will I figure out that DIS really stands for Data In Seconds :rotfl:

Chris
You might want to wait till you get home to read the "charts".......:rolleyes1

[palhockeymomof2]

[quote=palhockeymomof2;30194109]
For those that book 7 days at a time, preferably, 7 days that include a total weekend, the totals do only change 2,4,pts. etc. per WEEK. However, this timeshare is a flexible timeshare, not based on WEEK vacation stays, and not based on Sun-Sat stays at that. Yes, many vacation that way, many do not, and is why they chose a point based system. So if that flexiblility encompasses 2, 3, 4 day stays, the points re-allocations have now cost you more points to vacation. I understand were your comments where coming from.....:wizard:

:thumbsup2 I understand that DVC is a flexable timeshare..for us a week system based on a Sun-Sat stay would not have worked with the kids school/sports schedules..... we bought into BWV 8 years ago because of the flexability :love: to take trips of different lengths/seasons and villa size......I feel really bad:sad1: for everyone who bought an exact amont of points for a set season/villa size and has now needs more points per year to vacation the same way

[logan115]

The one I like was posted by a member who created comparison charts where one chart for each site shows both 2009 and 2010 points needed: http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081

Thanks - didn't see your post at first........like this one too !

[Sabor]

There are MANY people I know that do whatever they can to maximise their vacations who are not on these boards too. I even know cash paying guests who do this. They don't book weekend nights at POP because it's $10 extra....they book in value season....etc

The whole "manipulating" word bothers me a little in your post sabor. My husband and I became Members in Aug 2000. We purchased as many points as we felt we needed to do a Sun-Thurs stay. We explained to our guide, that we had an offsite timeshare and HAD to stay weekend to weekend there. So we had no use for staying weekends with DVC. So I don't feel we "manipulated" anything. We knew we wanted and neeed Sun thru Thurs so that is what we purchased and that is what we have used. No manipulation there. I will say, now with this reallocation, dvc will force us to do some manipulating. So beginning in 2010, yes...we will be manipulating to maximise our vacation (i.e., booking smaller units and switching over to larger ones during the weeknights we stay). But for the past 9 years, we have not done this. We vacationed as we had planned from the very beginning. But starting 2010, we will have to get a little more crafy.....;)

Manipulate

1. to manage or influence skillfully
2. to handle, manage, or use, esp. with skill, in some process of treatment or performance
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage

The word was not meant to be a negative , however if the "normal" vacation pattern is 7 days or ususally includes weekends for most vacations (all not just dvc or disney) and people who buy dvc start vacation Sun through Thursday they are manipulating there vacation habits to maximize their points.

If one is handling their points in a matter to purely get the most of them , thay are manipulating the system to ones advantage. I am not passing judgement or calling out anyone who does this as wrong, I have done some Sun -Thurs trips myself.

[jekjones1558]

Obviously it is perfectly fine to book only or mostly bargain weekdays. It seems like a greater percentage of members have done this than Disney anticipated so some members were disappointed when they did not get their weekday dates (I am one of those). Whether the point reallocation changes the booking patterns remains to be seen. I just called today to check on a waitlist for a BW view room for one week in December. Only the 2 weekend days (in the middle of the trip) were available. This has been a common pattern in my experience. I may be in the minority, but if the reallocation helps to free up a few weekdays it will be worth it to me.

[TisBit]

You cannot judge the majority of DVC members by those on these boards. As a genreal rule the people that post on this site are more savvy just by the fact they research about their vacations. By doing this they get all the tricks of the trade and either learn how to or are already manipulating thier vactaion habits to the system to maximize their time.

Most people really are not like most of us who patrol these boards.

I would wager that the Sun-Thurs traveler is large enough that something needed to be done to balance the system but are not the huge majority that they think they are.

I will even go so far to say that a lot of DVC'ers will probably not even notice the change in point requirements, because they don't study the charts and just book a room for the nights they decide to go. There will probably be a fleeting thought, or checking back on the 2009 chart if it crosses their mind that it seems higher.

[TisBit]

Manipulate

1. to manage or influence skillfully
2. to handle, manage, or use, esp. with skill, in some process of treatment or performance
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage

The word was not meant to be a negative , however if the "normal" vacation pattern is 7 days or ususally includes weekends for most vacations (all not just dvc or disney) and people who buy dvc start vacation Sun through Thursday they are manipulating there vacation habits to maximize their points.

If one is handling their points in a matter to purely get the most of them , thay are manipulating the system to ones advantage. I am not passing judgement or calling out anyone who does this as wrong, I have done some Sun -Thurs trips myself.

Exactly...and most people have taken the same vacation every year because it maximizes the return on their investment. And those same people very well will study the charts and find the best time to go to continue to maximize their investment.

Look at the first two weeks of Decmeber....why is so busy, check these boards and they tell you that it is very cheap on points, christmas decorations are out and the park attendance is historically low. This is not the "normal" vacation pattern of most WDW visitors as evidenced by resort bookings and the park attendance patterns.

[Dean]

As always, I respect your thoughtful opinion. And while I would love to fully buy into this thought, the end result is that it is more expensive as a whole for members to continue to vacation with their points at hand. Further realloclation will continue this trend....the only way to compensate for the changes, and maintain current vacation habits, is to increase or add-on points. Shifting members to include one or both weekends will not save or maintain the current members vacation points needed. So call it what you will, the end result does not change.....members will need more points, our current timeshare is not the same value as before the points reallocation. No denying this.....:sad2:That's not really true. Some members will need more points to vacation the same way they did, others will need less and many, if not most, will end up about the same overall. I think you're going on the assumption that the S-F crowd was a major group. While I think they were/are a significant group, I do not believe they are a major group in terms of number. And many of those still had enough points to make different choices and simply chose the S-F route, often staying weekends by other means. The truth is that it matters not (from a system standpoint) whether reallocation increases the costs for a subset of members because it's the overall usage that will drive this issue if further reallocations are needed.
That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive.Again, don't take this to represent the majority of the members either here on DIS or otherwise. People with a vested interest are more likely to post or even care plus bashing DVC has become the preferred view lately on the DVC portion of DIS and thus those with an opposing view are less likely to post. It's still a relatively small portion of the membership. Overall this change is likely neutral or nearly so to most members. Assuming the reallocation was needed, you would expect a larger group unhappy than happy, by definition. But still both groups added together are likely much smaller combined than those that are mostly unaffected.


For those that book 7 days at a time, preferably, 7 days that include a total weekend, the totals do only change 2,4,pts. etc. per WEEK. However, this timeshare is a flexible timeshare, not based on WEEK vacation stays, and not based on Sun-Sat stays at that. Yes, many vacation that way, many do not, and is why they chose a point based system. So if that flexiblility encompasses 2, 3, 4 day stays, the points re-allocations have now cost you more points to vacation. I understand where your comments were coming from.....:wizard:It seems I'm only responding to your posts. I'm really not trying to single you out or beat you up, sorry if it seems that way. People throw around the word flexibility like it means something unto itself. Flexibility means something different to different people. In many ways my Marriott timeshares is MORE flexible than DVC and the weeks I own are all full weeks and float within high season. No doubt some people's stay will go up and that's how it should be given the information and needs at hand. IMO, that fact that some people's stay will increase in points really has nothing to do with the reasonableness of the decision. I'm still sad for those it affects in a negative way but without that sadness spilling over to affecting the decisions at hand.

[Dean]

The whole "manipulating" word bothers me a little in your post sabor.To a degree beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person's use is another persons misuse. I'd personally put walking in this category of misuse. I would have put day by day as a use of an unintended ability.

A few in this discussion seem to indicate that those of us who are disappointed in the change are wrong, since Disney had the right to do this, and we should have anticipated it. Maybe so, but as no changes were made in the 13 years that I have been an owner, I have gotten used to the current point schedules.As I noted above, these are two separate issues. I certainly see one being unhappy with the change if they are affected negatively. IMO, that is an unrelated judgement of a personal situation that does not carry over to the reasonableness of the decision itself. I think that's the philosophical difference in that some are having trouble sorting out their personal situation and the effect therein compared to the system needs while many of us see them as different if not unrelated issues. Here's an example that I think is somewhat applicable. Most states do not have a way to collect sales tax on internet or similar sales that occur across state lines. Many try to shift the responsibility to the consumer to pay it instead but I don't know anyone who actually has gone to the trouble to do so. IF the states figure out a way to enforce the state taxes on such sales, I'm sure some will be unhappy but it's hard to argue with an enforcement of the state laws even though it's been this way for decades where no one way paying the tax.

[BWV Dreamin]

That's not really true. Some members will need more points to vacation the same way they did, others will need less and many, if not most, will end up about the same overall. I think you're going on the assumption that the S-F crowd was a major group. While I think they were/are a significant group, I do not believe they are a major group in terms of number. And many of those still had enough points to make different choices and simply chose the S-F route, often staying weekends by other means. The truth is that it matters not (from a system standpoint) whether reallocation increases the costs for a subset of members because it's the overall usage that will drive this issue if further reallocations are needed.
Again, don't take this to represent the majority of the members either here on DIS or otherwise. People with a vested interest are more likely to post or even care plus bashing DVC has become the preferred view lately on the DVC portion of DIS and thus those with an opposing view are less likely to post. It's still a relatively small portion of the membership. Overall this change is likely neutral or nearly so to most members. Assuming the reallocation was needed, you would expect a larger group unhappy than happy, by definition. But still both groups added together are likely much smaller combined than those that are mostly unaffected.

It seems I'm only responding to your posts. I'm really not trying to single you out or beat you up, sorry if it seems that way. People throw around the word flexibility like it means something unto itself. Flexibility means something different to different people. In many ways my Marriott timeshares is MORE flexible than DVC and the weeks I own are all full weeks and float within high season. No doubt some people's stay will go up and that's how it should be given the information and needs at hand. IMO, that fact that some people's stay will increase in points really has nothing to do with the reasonableness of the decision. I'm still sad for those it affects in a negative way but without that sadness spilling over to affecting the decisions at hand.
:rotfl2: :rotfl: Thats okay.....just a couple of highlighted comments. If the S-F crowd was not that major a group, who was driving the imbalance? Secondly, if the overall usage of Sun-Fri was not the causing factor for point reallocation.....what was? Oh Dean, this topic was exactly what prompted my first and lengthy thread back in 2007 when it was indeed you and tjkraz discussing these very same issues!!!

[Carl Aird]

Lets just stop now everyone is driving the moderators CRAZY
YES IT WAS/IS Shady
Some of us may have to buy more points
I've learned thats how ALL these point system time share rackets are running (after you pay it off they look for ways to make you buy more points)
I know A LOT of people are worring about THE FUTURE
Who knows what we'll want by then
Most of us will not be going to Disney 30 years from now anyway
GOD we'll be BOARD WITH IT!!
And Hopefully if you really enjoy it you will have the money and not mind buying more points!!!!!
And I hope everyone who does enjoy it and love it, and is in fear they made a bad purchase or will not be able to afford to go has more than enough money to buy as many points as they want!!
Dreams come true!

[tjkraz]

If the S-F crowd was not that major a group, who was driving the imbalance? Secondly, if the overall usage of Sun-Fri was not the causing factor for point reallocation.....what was?

I'll take a crack at this. Let's see if I'm reading Dean's mind...

I assume the largest group would be people who use points for some combination of weekdays and weekends.

Once you eliminate them you're left with two other groups: The Sun - Thurs night crowd and the Fri - Sat night weekenders. Assuming there are more Sunday to Thursday people than Friday / Saturday people, the Sun - Thurs would certainly be big enough to influence the system despite not being the largest group overall.

[Dean]

:rotfl2: :rotfl: Thats okay.....just a couple of highlighted comments. If the S-F crowd was not that major a group, who was driving the imbalance? Secondly, if the overall usage of Sun-Fri was not the causing factor for point reallocation.....what was? Oh Dean, this topic was exactly what prompted my first and lengthy thread back in 2007 when it was indeed you and tjkraz discussing these very same issues!!!Because it doesn't take a large % of people to make the balance out of whack. A 5% shift is enough to throw things off if it's consistent. Remember this is a conglomeration of usages. Some will be S-F, some will be 6 days with 1 weekend day, some will be 12 days with only one weekend, others a full week, etc. 5% is major in this context as is a 5% difference when talking SSR points at the 7 month window but it's not a MAJORITY which was the context in which you were using it. I do believe that the weekend/weekday imbalance was the main driving force in the change if not the only factor. So you should not have been surprised if we'd warned you already. One thing I can bet you is this won't be the last change that is negative to a group of members.

[mickeymom629]

I'm sad to say that I am seriously ready to sell my points. We have been members for 10 years and it has been wonderful. I was a cm and got my points less than it would have been. But having to pay yearly dues and now having to figure I can't use them yearly because I have to save up unless I want to take shorter stays than we already did (4-5 nights on weeknights - already seemed short!), it just doesn't seem worth it. With 6 of us, this was a wonderful value! But, two of my kids are graduating college soon and two more are getting ready to go, so this may be a good time to sell anyway -who knows when we will get to vacation at the same time. :confused3

...who am I kidding? I was going to say that I could take advantage of staying in another resort since we may be a group of 4 or less. We've stayed offsite and been pretty happy, though not as magical.

I'm going to miss it!:scared:

[MiaSRN62]

pahockeymom : so I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation......since everyones vacation habits are different... I also have no need to add on points and don't see any decrease in my DVC value......

tjkraz : What exactly is palhockeymomof2 "missing"? All she said is that she is not impacted by the reallocation

Right Tim....she is missing why some of us are complaining and not as happy as some others are and why some of us feel our DVC has lost some value for us......because SHE is not impacted. She is not just talking about how "she" is impacted, but states she doesn't see how "members" are affected. So she is "missing" the point, that for some, the pasture is not quite as green as it is for her. Some, like me, are going to be short 30 points every year. And she says she doesn't "understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members". That's all I meant by saying she was "missing" something. She's missing the ability to see the flip side of the coin, and that this reallocation does indeed impact alot of us. I think about recent AKV purchases and even more so, recent BLT purchases. People would have made much different point purchases had this allocation been released much earlier. This is what I meant Tim. Sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Look at the post right before mine (mickeymom629).....she's selling because she sees a loss of value in her DVC. So pahockeymom doesn't see how members were negatively impacted ?

[tjkraz]

Right Tim....she is missing why some of us are complaining and not as happy as some others are and why some of us feel our DVC has lost some value for us......because SHE is not impacted. She is not just talking about how "she" is impacted, but states she doesn't see how "members" are affected.

She said "members as a whole" not just "members."

If you look at the progression, the post she was replying to first implied the changes were an overall net reduction in value for everyone. That lead to confusion on pahockeymom's part since her numbers did not show it as being a net loss.

She made it quite clear that she sees how some are negatively affected by the change (quoted in my last post.) But she is also correct in observing that the net change--collectively--is zero. The reallocation did not add new points to the system. Some have seen their value increase...others have had their value decrease...but as a whole there is zero change.

[palhockeymomof2]

Right Tim....she is missing why some of us are complaining and not as happy as some others are and why some of us feel our DVC has lost some value for us......because SHE is not impacted. She is not just talking about how "she" is impacted, but states she doesn't see how "members" are affected. So she is "missing" the point, that for some, the pasture is not quite as green as it is for her. Some, like me, are going to be short 30 points every year. And she says she doesn't "understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members". That's all I meant by saying she was "missing" something. She's missing the ability to see the flip side of the coin, and that this reallocation does indeed impact alot of us. I think about recent AKV purchases and even more so, recent BLT purchases. People would have made much different point purchases had this allocation been released much earlier. This is what I meant Tim. Sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Look at the post right before mine (mickeymom629).....she's selling because she sees a loss of value in her DVC. So pahockeymom doesn't see how members were negatively impacted ?

Wow......I never said I didn't see how some members were negatively impacted...or that I didn't understand why some members were upset....I actually said the opposite....that I understood and felt very bad for those members so please don't put words in my mouth.......yes the reallocation made it more expensive for some members....but not all members... as was said in the post I read this morning...and the one I responded to.....I do see the flip side of the coin and did say I felt bad for you being short 30 points.....please go back and read what I said....

[MiaSRN62]

She made it quite clear that she sees how some are negatively affected by the change

Well sorry Tim....I guess her post didn't seem quite as clear to me as it did to you. I didn't see it the way you did. Interpretation can be a difficult thing on internet boards. Enough said by me on this point.

[palhockeymomof2]

She said "members as a whole" not just "members."

If you look at the progression, the post she was replying to first implied the changes were an overall net reduction in value for everyone. That lead to confusion on pahockeymom's part since her numbers did not show it as being a net loss.

She made it quite clear that she sees how some are negatively affected by the change (quoted in my last post.) But she is also correct in observing that the net change--collectively--is zero. The reallocation did not add new points to the system. Some have seen their value increase...others have had their value decrease...but as a whole there is zero change.

thanks again for explaining things much clearer that I do....

[DVCDebb]

Yes there are those of up upset due to the increase in points Sun-Thur as with school schedules and work this is what we can do and now points have gone up 5 points each night. That is a huge impact on family travel for some of us the value has gone down now.

[MiaSRN62]

Wow......I never said I didn't see how some members were negatively impacted...or that I didn't understand why some members were upset....I actually said the opposite....that I understood and felt very bad for those members so please don't put words in my mouth.......yes the reallocation made it more expensive for some members....but not all members... as was said in the post I read this morning...and the one I responded to.....I do see the flip side of the coin and did say I felt bad for you being short 30 points.....please go back and read what I said....

I apologize if I misinterpreted what you said pahockeymom. Honestly, I read and re-read your post and still see it differently. I'm on vacation in WDW right now....I probably shouldn't be on this particular thread.

I'm having some down-time after a long day in the parks (fighting cheerleader crowds) and staying up to 1 am last night for EMH. So I'm probably overly tired. So again, if I understood your post to say or mean something different, then I apologize. Don't know what else to say except I just keep missing the jist of what you were trying to say. Or I was concentrating on certain sentences and not looking at the post as a whole. Like I said.....I'm backing off from this thread while I'm in WDW because I don't need the heat.....:rotfl: I'm glad Tim is backing you up on what you said. Have a good night.........

[palhockeymomof2]

[QUOTE=MiaSRN62;30193272]Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something. My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs. That's 30 points short every single year for us.


I was responding to BWV dreamin's post a page or so back. that stated .. with the reallocation vacations were more expensive for members as a whole....I thought I had missed something in figuring out the number of points needed for our trips...trying to see how our vacations would be more expensive...since I thought I had calculated that on one trip the points needed would be 2 more and on another a few less.....I had figured out our points correctly......I get that for any trips booked for 5 week nights the points required per trip when up....and I understand your frustration..30 points... ugh

MiaSRN62..how exciting :yay: at WDW now..wish I was there too:sad1: ...have to wait another 6 months or so.....

I think these threads get confusing sometimes and I never meant anything negative by posting...the only reason I posted on it yesterday was because of the statement made about members as a whole needing more points & vacations being more expensive...I had thought I understood the reallocation....and didn't understand that statement....I've since made a few more post on this thread trying to answer different points...but the bottom line is I do understand and sympathize with anyone negatively affected...my brother is a member who will need more points to vacation as well...

Enjoy the rest of your trip:cheer2: Mary

[MiaSRN62]

Thanks for understanding Mary.......this thread has become quite the monster. I guess I've read so many negative/snarky comments (and several directed right at me), that you get the defensive guard up a bit.

I was reading through this thread and trying to catch up from 2/3 (the last day I had checked before leaving for FL), and I guess it was just too much to tackle while in "vacation mode" :rotfl:

We're on our final day in WDW and I'm planning on just going out and having some fun :banana: Thanks again Mary........


Oh....and btw, I was able to get dh out to see the BLT model (before we left, I mentioned he was refusing because he was so ticked !)........so I think a few posters said that this point reallocation frenzy would die down a little and the dust settle.....
Being that my dh was willing to look at the models showed he's softening a little bit on it. He's not sure he wants to buy any more points right now as he feels a bit deceived for lack of a better word.
Not happy.....but accepting it all a little more........

Off to play...............:yay:


Maria

[tjkraz]

I'm sad to say that I am seriously ready to sell my points. We have been members for 10 years and it has been wonderful. I was a cm and got my points less than it would have been. But having to pay yearly dues and now having to figure I can't use them yearly because I have to save up unless I want to take shorter stays than we already did (4-5 nights on weeknights - already seemed short!), it just doesn't seem worth it. With 6 of us, this was a wonderful value! But, two of my kids are graduating college soon and two more are getting ready to go, so this may be a good time to sell anyway -who knows when we will get to vacation at the same time. :confused3

...who am I kidding? I was going to say that I could take advantage of staying in another resort since we may be a group of 4 or less. We've stayed offsite and been pretty happy, though not as magical.

I'm going to miss it!:scared:

I can understand the initial negative reaction (believe me!) but you might want to take a close look at your numbers before you decide to sell.

According to your post you bought the points 10 years ago at a much lower price than we see today plus a CM discount. The points are long paid for. It also sounds like you only have enough points for 4-5 nights even under the 2009 charts.

If I'm reading that correctly, you can't own too many points. 150, perhaps?

Assuming Walt Disney World (or Disneyland, or Vero, or HHI) still appeals to you as a vacation destination, consider what you'll pay out-of-pocket as a cash guest compared to your current annual dues payments.

Even if you can't visit for 4-5 days every year, you should still be able to do that pattern 4 out of every 5 years with your current points by banking and borrowing. Or you could look at combining points from 2 years and making a longer stay every-other-year. Or you could look into visiting during a cheaper season. Sounds like your family may be getting a bit smaller--perhaps you could get by with a smaller room size.

Despite being a change that will impact many established vacation patterns, the reallocation doesn't completely eliminate the value of DVC ownership. And there are multiple approaches people can take to deal with it.

[mickeymom629]

Thanks tjkraz for the thoughtful words!

Actually we own 150 at HH and 50 VB and have never financed. But our dues are the highest and we never go to HH or VB, so I am thinking of selling ours and buying at WDW. I just got off the phone with someone at the Timeshare Store, and he gave me an idea of what my points might sell for. The interesting thing is that VB points are going for less than we bought them for and HH points are going for slightly more. Part of the reason for this is because I've already borrowed most of the points for 2009. :guilty: :)

I've thought of some of the scenarios you've stated, but I wonder how difficult the smaller rooms will be to book, especially now with the point chart increase. I always knew we could get a 2 bedroom at OkW.

I don't want to jump the gun. But I'm also worried about no one wanting to buy my points if/when I am ready to sell.

[jamstew]

I've thought of some of the scenarios you've stated, but I wonder how difficult the smaller rooms will be to book, especially now with the point chart increase.

That's my problem. I can't downsize from a studio :rotfl2: I have 150 at BCV & 150 at VWL, but I bought them with the intention of sharing the points with my adult children. The combined contracts are plenty for me to do whatever I want to, but I have to consider their trips too (actually, since I bought the points and pay the MFs, I don't really have to, but YKWIM). I was pretty freaked out at first, but after running some comprehensive spreadsheets, it's going to be at least six years before we're in a deficit (assuming the points don't change another 20% between now and then :scared: ). By that time, I seriously doubt I'll be traveling solo any more, so I'm not going to worry about it. I'm also not going to add on. I think I like the idea of a transfer when and if it becomes necessary.

[disneynutz]

I'm sad to say that I am seriously ready to sell my points. We have been members for 10 years and it has been wonderful. I was a cm and got my points less than it would have been. But having to pay yearly dues and now having to figure I can't use them yearly because I have to save up unless I want to take shorter stays than we already did (4-5 nights on weeknights - already seemed short!), it just doesn't seem worth it. With 6 of us, this was a wonderful value! But, two of my kids are graduating college soon and two more are getting ready to go, so this may be a good time to sell anyway -who knows when we will get to vacation at the same time. :confused3

...who am I kidding? I was going to say that I could take advantage of staying in another resort since we may be a group of 4 or less. We've stayed offsite and been pretty happy, though not as magical.

I'm going to miss it!:scared:

I hate to see Disney push anyone into giving up on what was once a good thing, but I understand your dismay.

You may want to investigate your contractual requirements should you decide to sell. Some CM's have reported that they are required to sell their points back to Disney.

Good luck and best wishes. :goodvibes

[disrailfan]

This is interesting. I am glad that we will be making short trips usually during the months of October and December from now on now that we are Empty Nesters. :)

[BroganMc]

This statement would also be accurate: "...I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation..." Since the total points cannot change, she is quite correct that the net impact to members is zero. Individual members will undeniably win or lose, but as a whole nothing has changed.

Ah but the issue is whether DVC has kept to the agreement that total points per resort remain the same.

This is at the heart of many questions and the myriad of mathematical calculations popping up across the member community. As of yet, DVC has not produced the figures that demonstrate totals have remained the same. And even some in Member Services are suggesting that they are not with some resorts having fewer points in 2010 than 2009. All we have to say that the reallocation preserved point totals is that brief PR announcement and what statements were in our contracts laced with a lot of faith that DVC wouldn't dare shortchange membership.

It all reminds me of a science fiction story I once watched. The supercomputer was inflating people's electric bills by 1-2 cents and embezzling billions with the net effect.

Second issue here is your definition of "membership as a whole". Without access to the data of "total points owned by each member" and "most frequent booking pattern", we simply do not know if more members suffered, gained or had no issues with this change. The best we can do is total up different types of vacations and see if they cost more or less points in 2010. This is where weekly points come in handy. It's very easy to see how vacations compare.

I'm one of those who will take a hit but can afford to adjust my way out of it. So my concern is based more on principle than anything else. Now if weekly totals had remained balanced throughout the year, I'd have much fewer issues with it.

[Dean]

Ah but the issue is whether DVC has kept to the agreement that total points per resort remain the same.

This is at the heart of many questions and the myriad of mathematical calculations popping up across the member community. As of yet, DVC has not produced the figures that demonstrate totals have remained the same. And even some in Member Services are suggesting that they are not with some resorts having fewer points in 2010 than 2009. All we have to say that the reallocation preserved point totals is that brief PR announcement and what statements were in our contracts laced with a lot of faith that DVC wouldn't dare shortchange membership.

It all reminds me of a science fiction story I once watched. The supercomputer was inflating people's electric bills by 1-2 cents and embezzling billions with the net effect.

Second issue here is your definition of "membership as a whole". Without access to the data of "total points owned by each member" and "most frequent booking pattern", we simply do not know if more members suffered, gained or had no issues with this change. The best we can do is total up different types of vacations and see if they cost more or less points in 2010. This is where weekly points come in handy. It's very easy to see how vacations compare.

I'm one of those who will take a hit but can afford to adjust my way out of it. So my concern is based more on principle than anything else. Now if weekly totals had remained balanced throughout the year, I'd have much fewer issues with it.All you have to do is make arrangements to go down and spend the day in Celebration with DVC looking over the books as is allowed under FL law. While I think we do know that most members will be essentially unaffected (no more than a few points up or down), it really doesn't matter nor affect the appropriateness of the change. ASAMOF, the more people truly affected the more likely the change was needed.

[MELSMICE]

While I think we do know that most members will be essentially unaffected (no more than a few points up or down), it really doesn't matter nor affect the appropriateness of the change.
I realize this is just rehashing the same old scenario, by my Easter break vacation in a 2BR at OKW from S-F will increase by 40 points. That's more than a few points.

[dcfromva]

While I think we do know that most members will be essentially unaffected (no more than a few points up or down), it really doesn't matter nor affect the appropriateness of the change. ASAMOF, the more people truly affected the more likely the change was needed.

I don't follow your point here (bolded). 100% of the people could be affected--50% up and 50% down. That would not speak to whether or not the change was needed--to me it would mean that the redistribution worked out favorable for some and not favorable for others.

[White_Sox_Fan]

I don't follow your point here (bolded). 100% of the people could be affected--50% up and 50% down. That would not speak to whether or not the change was needed--to me it would mean that the redistribution worked out favorable for some and not favorable for others.

Because of an apparent higher demand for the lower point weekdays it would probably be more like 60-70% negatively effected and 30-40% positively effected IMO.

Ah but the issue is whether DVC has kept to the agreement that total points per resort remain the same.



I guess you have to determine what you consider "the same". By no means do the charts seem to balance to exactly zero. I did calulations for a few resorts and found SSR to balance to 0.017%, BCV to 0.011% and OKW to 0.026%. All statisically insignificant IMO. However, as pointed out several times, the variation in number of weekends and seasons can account an even greater variation. There is a lot of unknowns in all of our caclulations. How does DVC take into account the yearly variations (like leap years), what percentage of lock-off occupancy do they consider, etc. Regardless, the fact that the numbers seem to be so close is evidence that there is no great imbalance in the reallocation as some have suggested.

[jana]

Originally Posted by BWV Dreamin
That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive. While it may be that more people have been negatively impacted, it is far more likely the imbalance in the POSTERS stating they have been negatively impacted is more down to human nature than the true numbers. Human nature makes those who feel they have been disadvantaged (AKA cheated) MUCH more likely to take the time and effort to let someone (anyone) know about it. This multiplies quickly for repeat posts. Someone whose pleased or neutral with a change in circumstances may post once to say so, but is unlikely to labor the point. Someone whose seriously Peed off is likely to vent until their anger has dissipated (which may take several posts). That's just the way humankind is wired

As has been stated a resort can be full ( at weekends) but not with members. If Disney has rented those rooms out in order to earn $$ for members using cash purchases ( DCL or CC) outside of Disney, it is a very inefficient use of those points. It results in Disney having to charge many more points for cruises, concierge collection and the Disney collection than may be required if there were more efficient ways of using those points. Lowering weekends at the very least means Disney would raise more $$ from the same number of points, either by lower cost per weekend or by being able to access lower point cost weekdays that are freed up by changing member usage. I hope the increased efficiency this change should bring about is passed onto the members in better value in non DVC options (waiting with breath baited)

Dean makes a great point ( among many) that perhaps the move to RCI has required Disney to bring their weekday/weekend points allocations more into line with RCI's. Either as a "legal" requirement of offering exchanges or just a realization of the practicalities of working together.
Perhaps ( and I find this hard to say because I love a good conspiracy theory) Disney, aware the current usage was already putting a large strain on the availability, realized when the RCI customers were added, it would be too much for an already over stretched system to take. That does require a range and ability of thought I'm a long way from convinced they possess, however I'm prepared to at least consider the notion.

[Disneyhappy]

Dean makes a great point ( among many) that perhaps the move to RCI has required Disney to bring their weekday/weekend points allocations more into line with RCI's. Either as a "legal" requirement of offering exchanges or just a realization of the practicalities of working together.
Perhaps ( and I find this hard to say because I love a good conspiracy theory) Disney, aware the current usage was already putting a large strain on the availability, realized when the RCI customers were added, it would be too much for an already over stretched system to take. That does require a range and ability of thought I'm a long way from convinced they possess, however I'm prepared to at least consider the notion.

If your theory is correct, DVC could have simply stayed with II and there would have been no need to reallocate the points.

[Sabor]

If your theory is correct, DVC could have simply stayed with II and there would have been no need to reallocate the points.

I don't understand why people cannot understand that there WAS a need to reallocate whether you like it or not. It was long overdue.

[tjkraz]

Dean makes a great point ( among many) that perhaps the move to RCI has required Disney to bring their weekday/weekend points allocations more into line with RCI's. Either as a "legal" requirement of offering exchanges or just a realization of the practicalities of working together.

I'd say it's possible that RCI asked--or DVC offered--to reallocate in order to make for a fundamentally sound start to the RCI relationship.

But RCI could not dictate how the points would be structured. Only historical booking trends can make that determination.

[Chuck S]

I'd say it's possible that RCI asked--or DVC offered--to reallocate in order to make for a fundamentally sound start to the RCI relationship.

But RCI could not dictate how the points would be structured. Only historical booking trends can make that determination.

And I think it is highly unlikely that the re-allocation had anything to do with RCI, as RCI was the original trading partner for DVC, and the charts were fine with them, then.

[tjkraz]

And I think it is highly unlikely that the re-allocation had anything to do with RCI, as RCI was the original trading partner for DVC, and the charts were fine with them, then.

I agree, Chuck, I don't really think the two had anything to do with one another. But even if they did on some level, RCI couldn't have made demands or set terms specific to the way points were reallocated.

[Dean]

I realize this is just rehashing the same old scenario, by my Easter break vacation in a 2BR at OKW from S-F will increase by 40 points. That's more than a few points.It is my suspicion that the S-F crowd, of which I've been one, is a relative minority. Thus most members won't be affected that much. Some will be and IMO, that is OK.

I don't follow your point here (bolded). 100% of the people could be affected--50% up and 50% down. That would not speak to whether or not the change was needed--to me it would mean that the redistribution worked out favorable for some and not favorable for others.If you read further you'll realize that I qualified essentially unaffected as being a few points up or down, say under 10% as an arbitrary value (yes I'd consider this a few points). It was just another way of saying that the more people doing S-F, the more the change was needed.

[bcrook]

OK, After 150 pages, I know I am supposed to be thankful to DVC for reallocation. I should be happy that I can't take as many trips to WDW so I can save myself some money on flights and gasoline. I am also very happy that I can give up some of my time on site so the locals (or other weekend travelers) can have cheaper weekends. I get that. I really do.

I still just can't believe that there is that much more demand for weekdays, or so much so that people can't get a week stay. I find it hard to believe that weekdays are booked and block 7 day trips or more. I understand that maybe certain locations or certain times are unavailable, but I just don't buy that this is a common occurrence. How often has somebody tried to book a week and not be able to get a nice room at Saratoga?

I went through every week in March and April (Magic Season and Premier) and all within 2 months. I tried to book a room through the Disney World site for cash. I could book an 8 night stay for any week at every resort except Beach Club. two-bedrooms were not as common, but 1 bedrooms were available always. I could get a studio everywhere.

If these rooms are available right now for cash, how are they are not available for points (or weren't available for points)? I just don't get it.

I could book anything I want to right now. Of course I wouldn't be able to book a BLT MK view (if it was ready). And I probably can't get a Savannah view at AK. Beach Club is tough, but there is plenty of inventory left everywhere else. :confused:

It shouldn't matter what demand looks like, if rooms are always available reallocation is not necessary - unless the sole reason is to find the best formula to eat up the most points per person. This is definitely possible, and probably just as important. That is significantly different than saying that it is based on effort to even out demand.

I have borrowed all of my 2010 points to have a big blowout 4th of July funfest this summer with my family and another family. I got to use my points at their highest value. We are looking forward to Kidani and the Beach Club. :banana: I don't have to worry about keeping or selling for another year. I was planning on adding on, but that will never happen now, and my friends won't be taking any tours.

All that being said, I do envy Maria and her family getting to spend the last week or more at Disney. I enjoy the magic, but DVC has tarnished the experience. It is unfortunate, and think there will be many more thousands of people shocked when they get their new DVC planners.

[Dean]

OK, After 150 pages, I know I am supposed to be thankful to DVC for reallocation. I should be happy that I can't take as many trips to WDW so I can save myself some money on flights and gasoline. I am also very happy that I can give up some of my time on site so the locals (or other weekend travelers) can have cheaper weekends. I get that. I really do.

I still just can't believe that there is that much more demand for weekdays, or so much so that people can't get a week stay. I find it hard to believe that weekdays are booked and block 7 day trips or more. I understand that maybe certain locations or certain times are unavailable, but I just don't buy that this is a common occurrence. How often has somebody tried to book a week and not be able to get a nice room at Saratoga?

I went through every week in March and April (Magic Season and Premier) and all within 2 months. I tried to book a room through the Disney World site for cash. I could book an 8 night stay for any week at every resort except Beach Club. two-bedrooms were not as common, but 1 bedrooms were available always. I could get a studio everywhere.

If these rooms are available right now for cash, how are they are not available for points (or weren't available for points)? I just don't get it.

I could book anything I want to right now. Of course I wouldn't be able to book a BLT MK view (if it was ready). And I probably can't get a Savannah view at AK. Beach Club is tough, but there is plenty of inventory left everywhere else. :confused:

It shouldn't matter what demand looks like, if rooms are always available reallocation is not necessary - unless the sole reason is to find the best formula to eat up the most points per person. This is definitely possible, and probably just as important. That is significantly different than saying that it is based on effort to even out demand.

I have borrowed all of my 2010 points to have a big blowout 4th of July funfest this summer with my family and another family. I got to use my points at their highest value. We are looking forward to Kidani and the Beach Club. :banana: I don't have to worry about keeping or selling for another year. I was planning on adding on, but that will never happen now, and my friends won't be taking any tours.

All that being said, I do envy Maria and her family getting to spend the last week or more at Disney. I enjoy the magic, but DVC has tarnished the experience. It is unfortunate, and think there will be many more thousands of people shocked when they get their new DVC planners.Cash inventory comes from several locations but much of it is exchange Inventory reserved early in the process and developer owned inventory. Given we've seen hundreds of threads where the subject is cash was available but not points, I don't think cash inventory gives us any insight as to how the units are available or when. Add to that the idea that SSR has been the most available resort and your example totally breaks down as an argument against reallocation. If you don't believe weekends were more available than weekdays, there is no common ground to discuss this issue.

For sold out resorts there cannot be openings throughout the year without an even distribution of usage both for different seasons and different times of the week. There is no real buffer to absorb the extra points. And that brings up another issue we've touched on somewhat. IF the demand varies enough for different times of the year, expect a reallocation of seasons as well, esp Dec and early Jan.

[bcrook]

I partly understand cash issues, but if you combine it with DIS availability boards, and other comments from posters - only certain resorts at certain times have issues with being crowded. It seems HHI island should be adjusted according to its seasonal needs and should not be lumped in with OKW, or vice versa.

If you don't believe weekends were more available than weekdays, there is no common ground to discuss this issue.

Wow - it is a consensus now that this is all legit and above board? Everybody's fine, and there need be no more grappling with the issue?

For sold out resorts there cannot be openings throughout the year without an even distribution of usage both for different seasons and different times of the week. There is no real buffer to absorb the extra points. And that brings up another issue we've touched on somewhat. IF the demand varies enough for different times of the year, expect a reallocation of seasons as well, esp Dec and early Jan.

I think this would have been the first step. It makes total sense. It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. Management still needs to be held to flame for the shady and deceptive manner they have distributed this information. It is much too early to give in and say everything is fine.

[codina818]

There was a post on another board that mentions that the reservations for BLT for S=View are now about the same as for the other resorts, at least for the weekday nights.

There thinking was that the points changes were made to make BLT the same or cheaper because BLT weren't selling so good.

I don't think I can post it here but they got tables and everything which shows that during weekdays, the new point changes show BWV-Pref/BW, VWL, BCV and AKV- Savanah view are now about the same as BLT s=viiw.

Seems like a good argument, was that posted at all?

Another question, how can they change the BLT charts and say that is from increased demand when they didn't have any reservations at that time? How could they know demand at a resort, BLT, where no reservations had been made? Ain't that illegal?

Sorry if this was brought up before, but this thread is so long, I ain't got the time to look thought the whole darn thing.

[tjkraz]

OK, After 150 pages, I know I am supposed to be thankful to DVC for reallocation. I should be happy that I can't take as many trips to WDW so I can save myself some money on flights and gasoline. I am also very happy that I can give up some of my time on site so the locals (or other weekend travelers) can have cheaper weekends. I get that. I really do.

I don't recall anyone saying you should be thankful for or happy about the reallocation, but it is what it is. Like it or dislike it, we're all stuck trying to best deal with it. :confused3

I still just can't believe that there is that much more demand for weekdays, or so much so that people can't get a week stay. I find it hard to believe that weekdays are booked and block 7 day trips or more. I understand that maybe certain locations or certain times are unavailable, but I just don't buy that this is a common occurrence. How often has somebody tried to book a week and not be able to get a nice room at Saratoga?

You're looking at it from a very black and white approach--either available or unavailable. Consider the gray area.

If a Sun - Thurs period in early-December is reaching 100% occupancy 10 1/2 months out while the Fri - Sat does not reach 100% occupancy until 2 months out, the points are out of balance. Both periods are still sold out, but the weighted point charts did not serve their intended purpose of balancing the demand.

Similarly if a slower Sun - Thurs period only reaches 80% occupancy while the bookend Fri - Sat nights are at 60%, the points are out of balance.

And there are certainly periods where weekdays get to full occupancy while the weekends still have vacancies.

I an understand disappointment over these changes. Believe me, I share it myself. But from what I have personally witnessed at the DVC resorts and my own experiences booking, the weekends were obviously out of whack. And the only remedy available to DVC (and its members) is to reallocate.

DVC already has more members wanting to use points for weekday stays than there actually are nights available. And without a reallocation, they would only continue to attract more weekday vacationers. DVC can't just keep falling back on "first come, first served" and leave a greater and greater percentage of owners unable to book the dates and accommodation they desire.

[tjkraz]

There was a post on another board that mentions that the reservations for BLT for S=View are now about the same as for the other resorts, at least for the weekday nights.

There thinking was that the points changes were made to make BLT the same or cheaper because BLT weren't selling so good.

BLT will sell out all in due time--reallocation or no reallocation. I really don't see some perceived uptick in sales as being motivation to make such drastic changes to the program.

Another question, how can they change the BLT charts and say that is from increased demand when they didn't have any reservations at that time? How could they know demand at a resort, BLT, where no reservations had been made? Ain't that illegal?

That argument has been raised and I agree it's the...shadiest...part of these changes. I suspect DVC would argue that similar trends are witnessed at each of their properties and that thee changes are still justified. But it certainly seems like there is reason to question the move.

[MELSMICE]

It is my suspicion that the S-F crowd, of which I've been one, is a relative minority. Thus most members won't be affected that much. Some will be and IMO, that is OK.
I respectfully disagree with this and here is why............

We are a family that spends almost every day at the resort pools. We head to dinner & the parks in the evenings. S-TH the pools are very crowded. On Fridays there are about 1/2 to 1/3 of the guests there. Many Fridays we have spent the day at are our DVC resort (OKW) & then transfered to a cash resort later in the day, spending the day at the DVC pool. There is a definite difference in the # of guests.

Now this could be for different reasons - people leaving to return home, people getting one last day in the parks before returning home on a Saturday, or anything else, but there is a noticeable difference in the # of guests at the resort on Friday afternoons.

[Dean]

I think this would have been the first step. It makes total sense. It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. Management still needs to be held to flame for the shady and deceptive manner they have distributed this information. It is much too early to give in and say everything is fine.While it wasn't with fanfare, it certainly wasn't shady and deceptive in distribution. They did have the hiccup where it was posted too early and removed, likely while they were still checking or approving it. It was placed on the website with an announcement and will be mailed to members.

Another question, how can they change the BLT charts and say that is from increased demand when they didn't have any reservations at that time? How could they know demand at a resort, BLT, where no reservations had been made? Ain't that illegal?I'm sure they are referring to the overall demand in the system, not BLT. There is a need for consistency between resorts in any issue such as this.

[MiaSRN62]

melsmice : We are a family that spends almost every day at the resort pools. We head to dinner & the parks in the evenings. S-TH the pools are very crowded. On Fridays there are about 1/2 to 1/3 of the guests there. Many Fridays we have spent the day at are our DVC resort (OKW) & then transfered to a cash resort later in the day, spending the day at the DVC pool. There is a definite difference in the # of guests.



And my observations have always been that it's been busier on the weekends. Dh and I used to think maybe it was more local Members booking stays for a weekend or extended weekend. Just checked out of SSR on Feb 6. When we checked in on Wed, barely anyone in the lobby. But on Friday, the lobby was packed with guests entering and checking in.

[jakenjess]

It is my suspicion that the S-F crowd, of which I've been one, is a relative minority. Thus most members won't be affected that much. Some will be and IMO, that is OK.



Dean, I've been following your reasonings throughout the thread and agree (though I'm not happy with the reallocation;) ) but I don't understand this. If most members won't be affected much, why do the reallocation at all? The S-F crowd couldn't be throwing the balance off that much if the majority aren't affected, or am I missing something here? If most aren't affected, that should mean that most are already booking weekend nights; if you've been staying S-F you're most definitely going to be affected, and not just by a few points.

[MELSMICE]

And my observations have always been that it's been busier on the weekends. Dh and I used to think maybe it was more local Members booking stays for a weekend or extended weekend. Just checked out of SSR on Feb 6. When we checked in on Wed, barely anyone in the lobby. But on Friday, the lobby was packed with guests entering and checking in.

I guess it could also be the time of year we are each staying. The times that I have noticed it the most are at peak times, when point values are higher, especially for weekends.

Also, I would think that a Wednesday would be a less busy check-in day to begin with, although I could be wrong, as everyone vacations different.

These were just my observations. We've also noticed many people sitting at the pools with their Welcome Packets waiting for their rooms to be ready on a Sunday afternoon - although that is not surprising.

[tjkraz]

I respectfully disagree with this and here is why............

We are a family that spends almost every day at the resort pools. We head to dinner & the parks in the evenings. S-TH the pools are very crowded. On Fridays there are about 1/2 to 1/3 of the guests there. Many Fridays we have spent the day at are our DVC resort (OKW) & then transfered to a cash resort later in the day, spending the day at the DVC pool. There is a definite difference in the # of guests.

Now this could be for different reasons - people leaving to return home, people getting one last day in the parks before returning home on a Saturday, or anything else, but there is a noticeable difference in the # of guests at the resort on Friday afternoons.

Generally speaking you could lump members' travel patterns into three buckets:

1. Those who vacation exclusively Sun - Thurs
2. Those who vacation exclusively Fri - Sat
3. Those whose vacations include both weekdays and weekends

When Dean speaks of the "S - F crowd", I believe he is referring to group #1 above--those who use their points ONLY for Sunday to Thursday nights.

I would agree with your assessment that the resorts are at much greater occupancy on the weekdays. But that occupancy is driven by groups 1 AND 3 above. And it's certainly possible that the exclusive Sun - Thurs vacationers are a minority...yet are still throwing the system out of balance.

[dianeschlicht]

I respectfully disagree with this and here is why............

We are a family that spends almost every day at the resort pools. We head to dinner & the parks in the evenings. S-TH the pools are very crowded. On Fridays there are about 1/2 to 1/3 of the guests there. Many Fridays we have spent the day at are our DVC resort (OKW) & then transfered to a cash resort later in the day, spending the day at the DVC pool. There is a definite difference in the # of guests.

Now this could be for different reasons - people leaving to return home, people getting one last day in the parks before returning home on a Saturday, or anything else, but there is a noticeable difference in the # of guests at the resort on Friday afternoons.

I think you are right about the "crowd" within DVC resorts on the weekends, but I think the REASON is that people learned to "work the system" with the five lower point days...saving points by not staying the weekends. I think you just nailed the real reason this allocation was necessary.

None of us has the "real" new charts in hand yet, and I'm reserving judgement until we do. AS far as I can tell, it will only require me to make minor adjustments to use the same number of points, and in most cases, I actually will be using LESS points now over the old charts.

[Dean]

Dean, I've been following your reasonings throughout the thread and agree (though I'm not happy with the reallocation;) ) but I don't understand this. If most members won't be affected much, why do the reallocation at all? The S-F crowd couldn't be throwing the balance off that much if the majority aren't affected, or am I missing something here? If most aren't affected, that should mean that most are already booking weekend nights; if you've been staying S-F you're most definitely going to be affected, and not just by a few points.I think I explained the thinking a few pages back. Basically it doesn't take a large percentage to throw the system out of balance. For sake of discussion assume you have a 95% usual occupancy and 85% of people do 7 days which start and/or end on a weekend. Then 10% of people do S-F either alone or as part of a 12 day stay. That leaves you a discrepancy of 10% from weekdays to weekends. Obviously it's far more complicated than that with many variations and nuances but this is essentially the end point of the thinking. As I and a few others have stated, it comes down to more than just the end point occupancy. It also is important to look at HOW and WHEN you got there. Cash reservations should be looked at differently than points and times that book up 3 months out should be looked at differently than those booked at 11 months or even 7 months. Even then you have to look at how/who. Were those rooms booked up by S-F guests and back filled by default from those who would have preferred weekdays also but they weren't available and may have complained about this pattern of availability. DVC will also look at HOW guests visit. If they stay S-F on points then weekends on cash (DVC or otherwise), this becomes important info as well.

As I've also said, I believe DVC needs some consistency. By that I mean that if Magic and Dream seasons were not a problem, but the rest of the times were, I believe they would change everything to keep the ratio's in the same ballpark. Same from one resort to another. If VWL were not an issue but SSR, OKW & BWV were, then I believe they would change all or none regardless.

I guess it could also be the time of year we are each staying. The times that I have noticed it the most are at peak times, when point values are higher, especially for weekends.

Also, I would think that a Wednesday would be a less busy check-in day to begin with, although I could be wrong, as everyone vacations different.

These were just my observations. We've also noticed many people sitting at the pools with their Welcome Packets waiting for their rooms to be ready on a Sunday afternoon - although that is not surprising.Far too anecdotal to draw conclusions from plus there's no way to tell how that time is compared to others and whether these are points or cash guests, which makes a big difference. See my explanation above as to my thinking.

[Disneyhappy]

I don't understand why people cannot understand that there WAS a need to reallocate whether you like it or not. It was long overdue.

No where in my post did it state I had an issue with the point reallocation. I didn't understand the logic that was used in the theory and was only questioning it. Smile! Life is too short!:goodvibes

[Mick West]

:confused3 I apologize if this has been discussed on here and I missed it. I've been a DVC owner for 7 years. One important question I had when I was considering this was wether the point values for a nights stay would change. I knew what the points currently were but I was concerned about what they would be 10 to 20 years down the road. I remember being told the "seasons" could change within the 5 point tiers, but if a stay was 12 points per night in the lowest season it would always be 12 points in that low season. I looked at the 2009 and 2010 charts and see that the point charts have changed. For example in 2009, from May 1 to 31 a studio at BCV is 13 points. During that same time in 2010 it is 15 points. I guess I'm just chacking to see if any of you were told the same thing at purchase or wether I just heard one thing and took it to mean something else.

[LisaS]

The discussion is going on here: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2066946 The thread is currently up to 150 pages and 2238 posts! Get a cup of coffee and settle in for a long read. :surfweb:

[wtpclc]

Mick - There was a little discussion here. ;)

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2066946

Basically, DVC can change all the points however they wan as long as the points for teh eyar balance out. There are limitations of ~20% for any given day, with teh exception that high seasons can do more. (Best example is that Easter changes and the weeks before and after are high season, whereas that specific day may not have been in a previosu year).

Yeah, it ook many of us by surprise. Generally, teh evened out weekend adn week nights a bit.

[SonicGuy]

I do not want to start a whole big thing here, but when I called my guide this morning about doing a BLT add-on for the free cruise, I told her that I needed to sit down the the charts and figure out what I would need. She told me to keep in mind that the charts change from time to time and that there may even be a "season change" coming soon. She mentioned that early December has become a very popular time and that it may be changing seasons.

We are still new to DVC - has this happened before? If so, does it happen often?

I dont want to buy just enough points for the season we like to travel and have it change seasons all together.

[disneynutz]

Disney has recently proved that they don't really care about members after the sale and they will makes changes to the program if it makes them more money.

Many members are now short points due to the 2010 point chart change, we are 30 points short.

[Chuck S]

Disney has recently proved that they don't really care about members after the sale and they will makes changes to the program if it makes them more money.

Many members are now short points due to the 2010 point chart change, we are 30 points short.
A reallocation proves nothing of the kind, unless you also think the 1996 OKW reallocation indicated they didn't care about members in 1996?

It does indicate that Disney is being responsible and reallocating to equalize demand. The fact that many members bought "just exactly" enough points is Disney's fault how, exactly?

[BWV Dreamin]

A reallocation proves nothing of the kind, unless you also think the 1996 OKW reallocation indicated they didn't care about members in 1996?

It does indicate that Disney is being responsible and reallocating to equalize demand. The fact that many members bought "just exactly" enough points is Disney's fault how, exactly?
We have no real facts on this, only Disney's response...so people can choose to believe that on face value or not. I am skeptical about their statement, it does not explain the REASON, only that they can do it based on those terms.

[dianeschlicht]

Disney has recently proved that they don't really care about members after the sale and they will makes changes to the program if it makes them more money.

Many members are now short points due to the 2010 point chart change, we are 30 points short.

On the contrary, I think it is good for members when the points are evened out a bit. The only reason folks are upset is because they have gotten into a habit of touring a specific way (to save points), and that way of touring has CAUSED the NEED to reallocate. It has NOTHING to do with money for DVC. We have been members for 12 years. We have the number of points that works well for us, and we utilize banking and borrowing in the manner it was designed to be used.

I think the only reason people are whining now is because they tried to get by with a minimum buy-in. In fact, if DVC was at fault for any of this, it was when they reduced the buy in price to 150 or, worse yet, 100 points!

[BWV Dreamin]

On the contrary, I think it is good for members when the points are evened out a bit. The only reason folks are upset is because they have gotten into a habit of touring a specific way (to save points), and that way of touring has CAUSED the NEED to reallocate. It has NOTHING to do with money for DVC. We have been members for 12 years. We have the number of points that works well for us, and we utilize banking and borrowing in the manner it was designed to be used.

I think the only reason people are whining now is because they tried to get by with a minimum buy-in. In fact, if DVC was at fault for any of this, it was when they reduced the buy in price to 150 or, worse yet, 100 points!
I am not whining, I am really not too affected. The fact is no one knows the real REASON for the change. You can accept Disney's statement at face value, however I am skeptical. Just because they CAN make the change, does not mean they won't BENEFIT from it. Oh, they will. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but they will. Considering Disney's fiancial situation, they need many pots to pull their profits from.

[mjfox]

A reallocation proves nothing of the kind, unless you also think the 1996 OKW reallocation indicated they didn't care about members in 1996?

It does indicate that Disney is being responsible and reallocating to equalize demand. The fact that many members bought "just exactly" enough points is Disney's fault how, exactly?

Here, Here... I with you "Chuck S". I'm just happy that I'm not tied up with using the same week number every year as some traditional timeshares are or only having Fri, Sat or Sun as the only check in days! Things could be worse and I not complaining that DVC is just trying to level the playing field so unused days could be usable days again. If there are unused days by points or cash that hurts all of us.:teacher:

[SonicGuy]

I do not want to start a whole big thing here, but when I called my guide this morning about doing a BLT add-on for the free cruise, I told her that I needed to sit down the the charts and figure out what I would need. She told me to keep in mind that the charts change from time to time and that there may even be a "season change" coming soon. She mentioned that early December has become a very popular time and that it may be changing seasons.

We are still new to DVC - has this happened before? If so, does it happen often?

I dont want to buy just enough points for the season we like to travel and have it change seasons all together.


Not sure why my post got moved into this monster - all I really wanted to know is if I can expect the seasons to change often.

[TSMIII]

I do not want to start a whole big thing here, but when I called my guide this morning about doing a BLT add-on for the free cruise, I told her that I needed to sit down the the charts and figure out what I would need. She told me to keep in mind that the charts change from time to time and that there may even be a "season change" coming soon. She mentioned that early December has become a very popular time and that it may be changing seasons.
We are still new to DVC - has this happened before? If so, does it happen often?

I dont want to buy just enough points for the season we like to travel and have it change seasons all together.

Others here have mentioned this possibility if DVC identified a demand imbalance with regard to the seasons as they are currently configured.

I wonder too, depending upon how large of a seasonal demand imbalance there was, if the season configurations may at some point differ from resort to resort. Something similar to the way in which VB differs from the WDW resorts.

Imagine if the first two weeks of December remained Adventure season for say AKV, but were moved to Choice or Dream season for VWL due to the higher demand at that time of year.:headache: Or if the F&W weeks were moved into a higher point cost season for BWV & BCV only.

I'm not certain DVC would want to "fine tune" the point charts to that degree but it's another possibility should one or more resorts exhibit disproportionate demand within a season relative to the other resorts.