Value DVC,..

[WALTSAGOD]

Obviously WDW makes good money with DVC, as they continue to expand the resort locations. What do you think keeps them adding a DVC option to the values? Granted the DVC value owner would have to swap out stays within the other Values and not Deluxes, but why would this not work.

DVC obviously brings in a lot of upfront money, with pre paid vacations, couldn't they make this same money by offering discounted, swap within other Values, DVC ownership?

Why not do the same thing with the Moderates?

[Dean]

Obviously WDW makes good money with DVC, as they continue to expand the resort locations. What do you think keeps them adding a DVC option to the values? Granted the DVC value owner would have to swap out stays within the other Values and not Deluxes, but why would this not work.

DVC obviously brings in a lot of upfront money, with pre paid vacations, couldn't they make this same money by offering discounted, swap within other Values, DVC ownership?

Why not do the same thing with the Moderates?This was batted around after 9/11 quite a bit though my opinion at the time was there was no basis to the rumor and it was essentially something generated on DIS. The problem with such a system is that it'd likely be enough different that making it a DVC resort with 7 month window would be almost impossible to be workable. My feeling is DVD would have to take the approach Marriott did with the Horizon's brand, having it separate but related, maybe interchange at 5 or 6 months with other DVC resorts. And while Marriott has since rolled the 2 Horizon's resorts into full fledged MVCI resorts, the difference from those 2 resort to other MVCI resorts is relatively meager compared to the difference between the current DVC resorts and any possible Disney value timeshare. It could be done but one of the issues is it would be in direct competition with other DVC resorts. If they chose to do so, the unfinished Pop Century or lessor off property locations like Gatlinburg, MB, Branson, would be the best opportunities. For places like MB, it would depend on the location. No need to waste a prime OF location on such a resort while an intercoastal resort would be ideal for such a resort.

[Brian Noble]

The biggest barriers are brand confusion and opportuity cost. DVC has established its value proposition and identity and this would be a very different thing. Second---why build "value" vacation ownership properties, when you can build "deluxe" ones instead? It's not like they are having a hard time selling the current inventory, or that they need to extend their market downward.

The Value resorts have a very different "job" than DVC. The Values' "job" is to cannibalize as much of the offsite "hotel/motel" business as possible, converting that market segment into a captive audience. Secondarily, the Values are the "entry drug" for WDW resorts---hoping to get people to move up on their next stay once they've gotten a taste.

It's not clear that there's a market to sell long-term vacation ownership to the market segment that wants to stick with Value resorts and still be able to maintain any kind of brand integrity.

[redrosesix]

Well...I'm considering buying DVC and I have stayed at ASMusic twice. I actually know quite a few people would be interested in this, especially from reading some of the posts in the threads about new construction at Pop.

I can't see how it would be that hard to do (the points would be different, since there are less amenities, like a 3 bdrm value villa would be equiv to a 1 bdrm current-DVC villa). JMHO. :rolleyes1

[Brian Noble]

I'm considering buying DVC and I have stayed at ASMusic twice.
Putting you squarely in the "gateway drug" camp.

If they can get you thinking seriously at the current price point, why would they ever build someting to sell at a lower price point?

[WALTSAGOD]

As far as trading outside of WDW, I was really just thinking about a Value DVC with WDW only. I don't think that the Deluxe crowd would step down and cause the original DVC to lose anything any more than the Value crowd would step up. Both crowds seem to like their own resorts for different reasons; same for the Moderates.

I just think that for the lower DVC Value points required for buying in, many Value lovers would pre pay, DVC style, their vacations, allowing WDW to cash in on all of the upfront money.

The value suites seem to be doing pretty well from what I read.

Many frequent WDW vacationers love the no frills style of the value resorts, as they are only there to sleep and attack the parks commando style. I really do feel that would be/is a large market for the Value DVC.

Why would the 7 month booking be any harder with the Values?

[WALTSAGOD]

If they can get you thinking seriously at the current price point, why would they ever build someting to sell at a lower price point?

To respond the many who just don't have the money for the Deluxe, or don't want to pay for the frills that they feel they don't need.

[calgarygary]

To respond the many who just don't have the money for the Deluxe, or don't want to pay for the frills that they feel they don't need.

You really need to look at it from a corporation's point of view - what value to Disney is there in putting capital into a project that will bring in a lower return on investment than what they are currently doing? The timeshare marketplace is a difficult business model to manage as a considerable upfront investment must be made (larger than hotels) and substantial dollars must be poured into marketing the timeshares. Having those 2 substantial costs returning a lower amount would not be a sound business decision.

[WALTSAGOD]

I'm not sure that it would bring in a lower return on investment. The return would be lower, but the investment would be much lower also. I would expect the quality be the same a the current Value construction; cheap with very little thrills.

Basically Motel 6 rooms but with a nice WDW theme going on.

[tjkraz]

To respond the many who just don't have the money for the Deluxe, or don't want to pay for the frills that they feel they don't need.

True, but you can't have one without the other. If you try to appeal to the bargain hunters, you have effectively sacrificed Brian's "gateway drug" camp. Instead of convincing people to buy 160 points for a Deluxe DVC, you're telling them that it's OK to just buy 1/2 or 1/3 of that at a Value DVC.

When one door opens, another closes.

[redrosesix]

Putting you squarely in the "gateway drug" camp.

If they can get you thinking seriously at the current price point, why would they ever build someting to sell at a lower price point?

Yup, the current price point works for us. Like many people who stay at the value resorts, we're the frugal types -- we could pay more but don't want to pay for amenities we won't use.

We also love the theming at the Value resorts, and other than AKV we're having a hard time choosing another DVC location that we would want to buy into (I'm not a CR type, and most of the other ones are a lot like home). There are a lot of things we like about ASMusic that we might not get elsewhere eg. no interior hallways, smaller resort, no complaints about kids running around and acting like kids.

But...having said that, I could see where there is room for another DVC resort, not necessarily value but to appeal to the crowd that likes the them eg. vintage Hollywood Hotel or retro 50's.

It would be interesting to know how many DVC memberships it would take to make a resort profitable, or how many DVC memberships there are for each of the resorts that have them. Of course, they'd have to be able to fill the left-over rooms through CRO too.

[spiceycat]

hey love Pop and stay there - fairly often - especially for fri and sat stays.

so a value DVC Pop would work for me. Think it would work for parents with kids who play sports. this would be close to WWoS - so walking would be possible.

you can see the fireworks from Epcot. there is a lot to love at Pop.

of course there is the noise issue - but hey for a value DVC you would expect to heard more noise than the deluxe ones.

[edk35]

:surfweb:WOW did I just read that???:confused3

:laundy: I will come back to this thread.....a nice chore will keep my mind off of what I think I just read.....?? :confused:

:scratchin hmmmm a VALUE DVC :idea:

:eek: :scared1: :eek:

:faint:


:music: I am not listening and I hope the DVC powers that be don't either.

:rolleyes:

[mybabesuz]

:surfweb:WOW did I just read that???:confused3

:laundy: I will come back to this thread.....a nice chore will keep my mind off of what I think I just read.....?? :confused:

:scratchin hmmmm a VALUE DVC :idea:

:eek: :scared1: :eek:

:faint:


:music: I am not listening and I hope the DVC powers that be don't either.

:rolleyes:

My thoughts exactly. :rolleyes:
We bought DVC to get away from the Values.
I don't ever want to look back...:scared:
But to each his own...:)

[dianeschlicht]

I'm not sure that it would bring in a lower return on investment. The return would be lower, but the investment would be much lower also. I would expect the quality be the same a the current Value construction; cheap with very little thrills.

Basically Motel 6 rooms but with a nice WDW theme going on.

BUT...the folks who stay in the budget places (think Motel 6) aren't the kind who are going to spend the money annually for a WDW trip. They aren't going to be able to afford the rest of the trip.

[Anal Annie]

To respond the many who just don't have the money for the Deluxe, or don't want to pay for the frills that they feel they don't need.

I just really don't see the point behind this idea. If they don't have the money for Deluxe then they stay at Values. That's simple enough. There's no need to create yet another "class" of guests. They could just build more suites like at ASM to fill any void. That seems to be the value equivalent of DVC and has become very popular with the value customer set. That way they don't need to BUY DVC. They just book and go whenever they can. I really don't think that people who stay in values for their entire stay are looking to buy a timeshare. I think they are more the occasional visitor. But I'm sure if they built more value suites they'd book them quite easily. I have a cousin who loves the ASM Suites and is turned off by the idea of paying annual maintenance dues for DVC.

We purchased DVC so we wouldn't be outpriced into having to stay in the values. To me, part of the point of owning DVC is to be able to stay at a deluxe level resort without the annual price increases draining on us.

[logan115]

Let's say that you can typically get a room at POP for $100, how much would a DVC value end up saving you ? $30-$50 per night ?

I think you'd have to have a much smaller buy-in in terms of points too (or obviously a different set of points that could only be used at a value).

Just thinking that if a night in a studio now is 11-15 points and it costs 2X (at least) what's a night at the value going to be 5 points ? If you buy in at 160 pts, that means you need to spend 32 days at POP to use all your points :rotfl2:

I love POP, but not sure I can commit a month a year to being at WDW (as much as I'd like to).

Yes I know my numbers are probably way off, but at least I had fun writing this post :rotfl:

Chris
Non-resort Snob :thumbsup2
Hopeful New DVC Owner :banana:
Trying to find ways to pass the time waiting for the ROFR :scared1:

[Chuck S]

I like POP century to add a night or two after a DVC stay. And I don't think it would necessarily be a bad location for a DVC resort (across the lake) since it appears POP won't be completed. But that doesn't mean that it would have to be a "Value DVC", it could easily be a Deluxe class condo style like OKW and SSR. The could easily modify the existing check-in/store/food court building to include a full service restaurant and even room service.

The building costs are pretty fixed, whether building a Deluxe or Value, the main differences are pools and room size, and DVC would surely want stay with the current studio, 1, 2 & 3 bedroom units. They could stylishly theme different buildings to represent decades, sans giant icons, using appropriate architecture and furnishings. The existing unused resort room buildings could be converted in to DVC studios, adding a kitchenette.

That is assuming the existing buildings are still structurally sound.

[edk35]

I like POP century to add a night or two after a DVC stay. And I don't think it would necessarily be a bad location for a DVC resort (across the lake) since it appears POP won't be completed. But that doesn't mean that it would have to be a "Value DVC", it could easily be a Deluxe class condo style like OKW and SSR. The could easily modify the existing check-in/store/food court building to include a full service restaurant and even room service.

The building costs are pretty fixed, whether building a Deluxe or Value, the main differences are pools and room size, and DVC would surely want stay with the current studio, 1, 2 & 3 bedroom units. They could stylishly theme different buildings to represent decades, sans giant icons, using appropriate architecture and furnishings. The existing unused resort room buildings could be converted in to DVC studios, adding a kitchenette.

That is assuming the existing buildings are still structurally sound.

However to do all that............don't you think " DVC Value Affordability" would be off the table as far as people intested in seeing DVC add "value villa accomodations" It might be out of reach for those wanting such a DVC category. I don't see how DVC could add what you described and yet have a buy in of less than 160 points at a "value" price that would entice these type vacationers. That would be going backwards. I just don't see it. I think most DVC folks that stay at the values are ones that didn't want to pay the weekend points or maybe a last minute trip when their points are gone. I however did not buy into DVC to stay in a "value" type of accomodation.

Plus...I think the VALUE STAYERS are not people interested in DVC as a 1,2, 3 bedroom accomodation experience.

If DVC wanted to add another "themed resort" sure that would be great....but the deluxe accomodations that most of us bought in for....should not be anything less than what there is now. My opinion.

[Chuck S]

However to do all that............don't you think " DVC Value Affordability" would be off the table as far as people intested in seeing DVC add "value villa accomodations" It might be out of reach for those wanting such a DVC category. I don't see how DVC could add what you described and yet have a buy in of less than 160 points at a "value" price that would entice these type vacationers. That would be going backwards. I just don't see it. I think most DVC folks that stay at the values are ones that didn't want to pay the weekend points or maybe a last minute trip when their points are gone. I however did not buy into DVC to stay in a "value" type of accomodation.

Plus...I think the VALUE STAYERS are not people interested in DVC as 1,2, 3 bedroom accomodation experience.

If DVC wanted to add another "themed resort" sure that would be great....but the deluxe accomodations that most of us bought in for....should not be anything less than what there is now. My opinion.


I think that is exactly what I was trying to say. That I like the POP location for DVC, but it would not be a "Value DVC" it would be a regular Deluxe condo style DVC like OKW and SSR, and that existing buildings, if structurally sound, could easily be re-purposed to fit the Deluxe requirements.

[edk35]

I think that is exactly what I was trying to say. That I like the POP location for DVC, but it would not be a "Value DVC" it would be a regular Deluxe condo style DVC like OKW and SSR, and that existing buildings, if structurally sound, could easily be re-purposed to fit the Deluxe requirements.

Okie dokie :thumbsup2....yeah another themed resort would be awesome. Another great choice for DVC peeps. I just wouldn't want to to see a "value DVC added to the list".

[DisFlan]

Would the "value" members be able to stay at other DVC resorts? (Which is pretty much the hallmark of DVC.) Would their "points" be the same as other "points"? Would someone who bought 200 cheap points be able to turn around and use them at BLT? I could see some major irritations if that happened. "Equitability" would be a problem unless the points were limited to the value DVC resort. Or possibly doubled for elsewhere.

And if the points required for weekend nights were low at the value resort, I could see a number of regular DVCers grabbing them (or buying small, cheap add-ons) in lieu of the the more point-costly weekend stays at the other resorts. Which would mean less weekend traffic at BCV, AKV etc. We could see the "minimum night" requirement invoked - including a weekend night.

I doubt that Disney wants to open this can of worms. Even if it could be made to work, it would likely end up generating less profit for DVC than selling "deluxe" points. They'd need nearly twice as many value buyers to generate the same $$.

DisFlan

[spiceycat]

yea but you can put more units in a value DVC resort than a deluxe one.

can easily see 3,000 units in the Pop - they would definitely be smaller - but the resort can go higher. especially with those fancy hotels that is being put in Bonnett Creek - and besides a value DVC would definitely attract those Wyndham buyers....

first against a value DVC resort - but hey if anyone can get it to work DVC can.

would think it would be like Horizons -- they got less time to trade into the regular Marriott timeshares. so instead for 11/7, there would be 11/4 or even 11/3. that gives them a month before the remaining units goes to CRO.

[BostonDisneyKid]

Would the "value" members be able to stay at other DVC resorts? (Which is pretty much the hallmark of DVC.) Would their "points" be the same as other "points"? Would someone who bought 200 cheap points be able to turn around and use them at BLT? I could see some major irritations if that happened. "Equitability" would be a problem unless the points were limited to the value DVC resort. Or possibly doubled for elsewhere.

That is a valid point but I think the opposite issue would/could be worse...

Take that example given by logan115 to a higher level... I have 370 points and at 5 pts a day that would be 74 nights in a studio which isnt a lot of points in comparison to many owners who have 1000, 1500, 2000+ points. Imagine the possabilities of those owners individually (200, 300, 400 studio nights a year). Now imagine if the 1000 point club got together, what the possabilties could be... They could essentially take over the resort, if they chose to...

[redrosesix]

That is a valid point but I think the opposite issue would/could be worse...

Take that example given by logan115 to a higher level... I have 370 points and at 5 pts a day that would be 74 nights in a studio which isnt a lot of points in comparison to many owners who have 1000, 1500, 2000+ points. Imagine the possabilities of those owners individually (200, 300, 400 studio nights a year). Now imagine if the 1000 point club got together, what the possabilties could be... They could essentially take over the resort, if they chose to...

I think this is probably closer to what would happen. They're not going to create a separate points system, but the value DVC would require less points per night. But if this scenario is at all possible, then it shows that there is probably a market for a value DVC, or at least for more studios.

As far as the minimum buy-in, the 160 points is already too much for many people. I don't think we have any choice but to buy resale because we probably won't need more than 110 points.

[spiceycat]

That is a valid point but I think the opposite issue would/could be worse...

Take that example given by logan115 to a higher level... I have 370 points and at 5 pts a day that would be 74 nights in a studio which isnt a lot of points in comparison to many owners who have 1000, 1500, 2000+ points. Imagine the possabilities of those owners individually (200, 300, 400 studio nights a year). Now imagine if the 1000 point club got together, what the possabilties could be... They could essentially take over the resort, if they chose to...

not because the way I was saying it would be 11/3 months for them to trade into the other DVC - well guess what that works both ways - you could not trade out until 3 months before you left either.

so really doubt enough of the resort would be left for anyone to take it over.

[disneychic]

I'd NEVER utilize this. I can honestly say that I hope this is one of those ideas that slips through the cracks.

[DisFlan]

I'd NEVER utilize this. I can honestly say that I hope this is one of those ideas that slips through the cracks.

A lot of people probably feel as you do. (I'm don't think I'd enjoy it, either.) But there are also a lot of members who now stay at Pop or All Stars for a night or two prior to or during their DVC stay to stretch their points or work more trips in per year. Not to mention prospective buyers who balk at the current price tag of ownership. I'd bet there'd be a considerable interest in both using and buying a value DVC. I'm not sure I'd ever like to see it happen - or that Disney is interested in doing it, but I don't doubt its potential popularity.

DisFlan

[ADP]

I think at some point we will see classes of DVC like a value class. Let's face it if we have a value class we and others maybe able to take an extra trip or two per year to WDW. I thnk Disney would love it's most loyal fans visiting WDW once or twice more per year.

[DVCGeek]

I don't see how DVC could add what you described and yet have a buy in of less than 160 points at a "value" price that would entice these type vacationers.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but theoretically-

What about DVC building a studio only "value" resort that had a low # points per room (hypothetically 1 point per night less than a value view studio @ AKV) and give a smaller minimum buy in but typical costs otherwise ($112/pt. purchase before promos, $3.75 / pt. dues to start...)? 1 week in Dream would be 75 points, so make that the minimum buy in FOR THAT RESORT ONLY. 160 isn't set in stone and I know there was a promotional 100 point minimum new member buy-in for AKV when I bought my BLT, and it had the 160 minimum then, so there is precedent for different minimums at different resorts...

[Chuck S]

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but theoretically-

What about DVC building a studio only "value" resort that had a low # points per room (hypothetically 1 point per night less than a value view studio @ AKV) and give a smaller minimum buy in but typical costs otherwise ($112/pt. purchase before promos, $3.75 / pt. dues to start...)? 1 week in Dream would be 75 points, so make that the minimum buy in FOR THAT RESORT ONLY. 160 isn't set in stone and I know there was a promotional 100 point minimum new member buy-in for AKV when I bought my BLT, and it had the 160 minimum then, so there is precedent for different minimums at different resorts...


I think that would pretty much be a disaster for the DVC brand in the marketplace as a whole. They would have little, if any, trading power through RCI/II, and really, why should they even have the same trade power within the DVC system. It would almost need to be a completely stand alone, single destination membership. And resale value would be terrible compared to other DVC resorts, I can't imagine selling it for the same price per point. But it would cost almost the same to build, so the ROI wouldn't be there for DVD. And maintenance fees would be about the same as other resorts per point, so another strike against it as far as resale value.

I like the POP location, but I still think it needs to be a condo style deluxe resort, similar to OKW and SSR.

[Dean]

Marriott tried this approach and failed. IMO they had a good idea they just got greedy. I feel this plan could be workable assuming some time protection for DVC members of say an extra month or two where the value DVC members couldn't reserve. I doubt Disney will do it since I doubt there's enough return in it for them and I don't share the belief that some seem to have the Disney owes it to provide a more affordable option.

[WALTSAGOD]

BUT...the folks who stay in the budget places (think Motel 6) aren't the kind who are going to spend the money annually for a WDW trip. They aren't going to be able to afford the rest of the trip.


What makes you think that Value vacationeers don't go to WDW annually. I'm sure that many do.

[WALTSAGOD]

Plus...I think the VALUE STAYERS are not people interested in DVC as a 1,2, 3 bedroom accomodation experience.


I agree, but I think the popularity of a Value DVC would be in offering the same small, economical rooms, with a cheap buy in. In reality, pre paying their Value vacations similar to DVC.

[redrosesix]

I'm not sure I understand why so many people have something against Value guests booking DVC units -- it's not as if they'll need any less points to do so. The price per point is going to be the same regardless of their home resort, so wouldn't their points be worth just as much? :confused3

I guess I could ask the same question about some of the older DVC resorts -- their price per point is much lower than some others when you look at the resales.

[Chuck S]

I'm not sure I understand why so many people have something against Value guests booking DVC units -- it's not as if they'll need any less points to do so. The price per point is going to be the same regardless of their home resort, so wouldn't their points be worth just as much? :confused3

I guess I could ask the same question about some of the older DVC resorts -- their price per point is much lower than some others when you look at the resales.


For starters, it would undercut resale prices even farther, if there is a larger number of smaller contracts available via resale. It can make bookings for everyone even more difficult at the 7 month window, the larger the number of members wanting to travel during peak times with a set number of units makes normally busy booking periods even worse, especially if they want something other than a studio, if as some have suggested, the resort be studio heavy. The initial building cost is the pretty much the same, they can't make studios too much smaller and still comfortably sleep 4, so by making it less points per night, Disney would be making less initial profit. If they make the studios too small, or omit the kitchenette, basically making them a plain hotel room, their resort really has no appeal to most other members, it would just about have to be under 10 points a night for weekends to be comparable to the cost of a value resort room if you figure $10 per point.

[Dean]

I'm not sure I understand why so many people have something against Value guests booking DVC units -- it's not as if they'll need any less points to do so. The price per point is going to be the same regardless of their home resort, so wouldn't their points be worth just as much? :confused3

I guess I could ask the same question about some of the older DVC resorts -- their price per point is much lower than some others when you look at the resales.First, you're making assumptions that are not necessarily true. We don't know if the points structure or price would be in line with the current DVC. It is valid to ask the question about any resort added to the system. SSR is a good example of a resort that added a lot of points to the system more than it added demand. But even then it's relative to other resorts in the system and the true difference between say SSR and maybe BCV is relatively small. That would not be true for value resorts where the only draw for current DVC members would be cost in almost all cases. Thus you drag a lot of extra points in the mix with essentially no demand from other DVC owners. This has a major impact if they are simply included in the system with open access at 7 months, far less if you give other DVC owners a 1-2 month priority for non home resorts. That's why I think it's only workable if there is a delay in access between the two systems.

Think of the program where you swap houses for a week or two. If one person got a 4 BR ocean front house on HH and the other got a mobile home in a field, it is not a fair trade even if you adjust in some way. If timeshare were cars, DVC would be an acura and the values a Kia. Both have their place but little cross over.

[Brian Noble]

Marriott tried this approach and failed.
Not only that---they recently announced that they're renaming the two "Horizons" resorts, and will be upgrading the furnishings to "regular" Marriott standards on the next refurb.

What makes you think that Value vacationeers don't go to WDW annually.
I don't think this is the question. Rather: what makes you think TWDC wants to lock in long-term guests at Value resort prices?

[edk35]

I agree, but I think the popularity of a Value DVC would be in offering the same small, economical rooms, with a cheap buy in. In reality, pre paying their Value vacations similar to DVC.


As long as those buying into the value DVC could only stay there at their values. I don't see them buying in at a low point price but yet being able to book the regular dvc resorts. If that was the case...people would buy value dvc points in large mass quantities so they could stay at the better resorts at the 7th month window. This is no win situation ............my opinion. There is NO way that DVC could offer up points for a value home resort less than what the current prices are ......if they want the value buyers to be able to stay at the other resorts then they would have to pay somewhere in the same ballpark as the latest new resorts. If they say we are selling the new "POP Value DVC at 50 bucks a point" do you think it is fair for them to be able to stay at the other resorts on those points? I don't. If the current market is 100-112 a point for AKV or BLT.....then they offer some cheap price per point for a DVC value resort.....some folks are going to be PEEVED.


i just don't think DVC will go in that direction. Look at what they have built thus far, AKV, BLT, the California resort and the new Hawaii one. NOPE can't see the Value DVC happening.

[Dean]

Not only that---they recently announced that they're renaming the two "Horizons" resorts, and will be upgrading the furnishings to "regular" Marriott standards on the next refurb.They are changing the names and rebranding them as MVCI resorts. Orlando will be Marriott's Harbour Lake, not sure yet what the Branson resort will be. From a functional standpoint they became MVCI resorts when the exchange priority was combined to 24 days same for all Marriott resorts. This happened maybe in 2002 or 2003.

[BostonDisneyKid]

What are your thoughts on this...

If the imaginary "value dvc resort" buy in had a reduced ownership life cycle, say 15 year life of ownership vs 50 year life of ownership as with regular dvc to offset the point costs/allocations. And add a restriction of no resale options; all sales were direct from disney and had a 15 yr life cycle regardless when you purchased and had a limited booking/transfer policy of say 2-3 months less (8/4 rule?).

Note before the flames begin - this was just a idea/thought without thinking of additional implications or affect to current dvc owners...

[Chuck S]

What are your thoughts on this...

If the imaginary "value dvc resort" buy in had a reduced ownership life cycle, say 15 year life of ownership vs 50 year life of ownership as with regular dvc to offset the point costs/allocations. And add a restriction of no resale options; all sales were direct from disney and had a 15 yr life cycle regardless when you purchased and had a limited booking/transfer policy of say 2-3 months less (8/4 rule?).

Note before the flames begin - this was just a idea/thought without thinking of additional implications or affect to current dvc owners...

I think "upgrading" Member Services computer for different booking windows, and different resort rules, would be expensive and cause a lot of problems. Then re-training CMs on the new rules...

I think buyers, even at a reduced cost and reduced length of lease, would expect full membership rights.

I think trying to operate two similar products under two separate sets of rules would cause more trouble than it is worth.

[redrosesix]

What are your thoughts on this...

If the imaginary "value dvc resort" buy in had a reduced ownership life cycle, say 15 year life of ownership vs 50 year life of ownership as with regular dvc to offset the point costs/allocations. And add a restriction of no resale options; all sales were direct from disney and had a 15 yr life cycle regardless when you purchased and had a limited booking/transfer policy of say 2-3 months less (8/4 rule?).

Note before the flames begin - this was just a idea/thought without thinking of additional implications or affect to current dvc owners...

I'm not sure this deal would be attractive to anyone -- it wouldn't probably affect the current DVC values, but I can't imagine anybody buying this, especially when they can "own" a regular timeshare offsite

I think "upgrading" Member Services computer for different booking windows, and different resort rules, would be expensive and cause a lot of problems. Then re-training CMs on the new rules...

I think buyers, even at a reduced cost and reduced length of lease, would expect full membership rights.

I think trying to operate two similar products under two separate sets of rules would cause more trouble than it is worth.

I agree. And I hate the thought of them doing anything new to the computer system. :scared1:

[crisi]

What makes you think that Value vacationeers don't go to WDW annually. I'm sure that many do.

Probably, but they quite possibly:

1) They do not want to (cannot afford to) make the upfront committment to annual Disney vacations that a timeshare demands. Paying cash increases your flexibility A LOT. If you decide this year you can't quite afford your vacation, you just don't take it and are out nothing.

or

2) Are frugal and motivated by deals. I don't see the deal shopper as being a good match for DVC - they seem easily frustrated when they hear about free dining or someone getting a great postcard rate - and they usually seem pretty convinced they can get something.

[TSMIII]

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but theoretically-

What about DVC building a studio only "value" resort that had a low # points per room (hypothetically 1 point per night less than a value view studio @ AKV) and give a smaller minimum buy in but typical costs otherwise ($112/pt. purchase before promos, $3.75 / pt. dues to start...)? 1 week in Dream would be 75 points, so make that the minimum buy in FOR THAT RESORT ONLY. 160 isn't set in stone and I know there was a promotional 100 point minimum new member buy-in for AKV when I bought my BLT, and it had the 160 minimum then, so there is precedent for different minimums at different resorts...

If we consider what they did last year as you pointed out, I'd say DVC has already offered a type of "Value DVC", albeit short-lived.

Does anyone know what the motivation was for this promo? IIRC, many were speculating that DVC wanted to generate more sales by mitigating the minimum buy in "sticker shock" to a degree.

Wonder what kind of marketing & demographic data they got from this promo? Was this promo a trial balloon for the oft-mentioned "Value DVC"?

Think about those that got this deal - They bought in direct for less than 160 points with the 100 point offer and did so at the resort which has "value" rooms both in terms of size and point cost -OK so there's very few rooms that meet this standard, but they now get 11 month priority for the value rooms on property without the higher buy in cost (though the point price wasn't reduced) without the booking and use restrictions and without being restricted to some type of reduced amenities resort as has been suggested for a "Value DVC".

DVC could just do this again and gain some of those that would otherwise only be in the market for a "Value DVC" without the risk of cannibalizing regular DVC sales and with the potential that once in the system, those 100 point buy in folks may want/need to add-on more points.

[jodifla]

I don't see folks who love values coming up with the cash to buy in, frankly. And if the cost were low enough to appeal to these folks, then it wouldn't be financially worth it to WDW.

[BostonDisneyKid]

I don't see folks who love values coming up with the cash to buy in, frankly.

I am curious what makes you think that?
I ask because I bought 370 points back in 2004 (paid cash) and if given the choice or Pop or SSR - I'd chose Pop.
If given the choice of SSR or All Stars, I'd chose SSR.
If given the choice of ANY moderate or SSR, I'd chose the moderate.

[Chuck S]

As far as trading outside of WDW, I was really just thinking about a Value DVC with WDW only. I don't think that the Deluxe crowd would step down and cause the original DVC to lose anything any more than the Value crowd would step up. Both crowds seem to like their own resorts for different reasons; same for the Moderates.

I just think that for the lower DVC Value points required for buying in, many Value lovers would pre pay, DVC style, their vacations, allowing WDW to cash in on all of the upfront money.

The value suites seem to be doing pretty well from what I read.

Many frequent WDW vacationers love the no frills style of the value resorts, as they are only there to sleep and attack the parks commando style. I really do feel that would be/is a large market for the Value DVC.

Why would the 7 month booking be any harder with the Values?

Would there be any advantage to own a Value DVC? If people want "more for their money" they can spend almost the same as a Value resort to rent a studio from a DVC owner. I think the "typical" cash Value guest like the cash cancelation policies that would not be available to any points revervation, whether they rented from an owner or owned themselves. While some would be intereste, I would think that the vast majority of Value resort guests would not want to tie up a good chunk of $$ for an extended period of time, and if they did, there are offsite timeshares, like Bonnet Creek, to fill that market.

[logan115]

I really don't have a view on this being either good or bad, but.......

Just not sure that you "save" enough with a value DVC proposition. I'm buying DVC now because there's no way I could afford a 2BR for $800/night, but even "renting" points I could get that for $400, a savings of hundreds of dollars. If I can get POP now for $100, but using points it's only $50, yes it's a nice percentage discount, but if I only save $350/week how do I ever recoup my investment ? That's not even taking into account MFs.

Suppose a different set of points, different prices for these points which would result in a much lower buy in cost is possible, but as pps have said is there that big of a market for this ?

Here's another problem, let's say that there is a value DVC, and instead of members staying at the current DVC resorts on the weekend they stay at the POP DVC with their points, then switch for Sun-Thurs. Isn't this why there was just an adjustment made to the points schedule (praying this doesn't get moved to the "other" thread cuz I said that) and wouldn't it put DVC back into the same problem of having open weekend rooms ?

Chris

[WALTSAGOD]

I don't see folks who love values coming up with the cash to buy in, frankly. And if the cost were low enough to appeal to these folks, then it wouldn't be financially worth it to WDW.

That seems snotty to me. I would imagine that many Value vacationeers would have the money, but choose to stay at the values due their commmando vacation habits.

[Dean]

That seems snotty to me. I would imagine that many Value vacationeers would have the money, but choose to stay at the values due their commmando vacation habits.I'm sure there are a number of people that would be interested but as I've hinted at already, there likely isn't as much market as you might think at a level DVC would have to sell for and it could not be just part of DVC itself. And I doubt there are enough people that would/could do it to make it worthwhile to DVC to compete with the own product. Lets explore the issue a little. Assume they rennovated the remaining pop rooms as studio units for comparisons sake then compare to DVC studios. Assume the same price per point and point structure but a lower minimum of say 50 points. So roughly $5500K to buy in and dues of maybe $3-3.50 a point. Would you buy there to use say 8 points at a value studio when you could get SSR for 11? This is about as large a spread in number of points that DVC could do and make a reasonable profit, if you were thinking half, you're way off. And one could get enough SSR resale to do the same thing without the compromise.

[DVCGeek]

That seems snotty to me. I would imagine that many Value vacationeers would have the money, but choose to stay at the values due their commmando vacation habits.

I think I am one of those Commando vacation - Value resort - have the money types you are referring to. Rope drop to park close each day. biggest break was typically a table service meal daily, occasionally lunch AND dinner. DW always said that it didn't make sense to spend extra on a 'nicer' room since I was never there on vacations in general. However, as things progressed-

DW & I stayed @ Pop in 2006 for her BD. 4 nights, commando style 3 days in parks; really wore her out. Then we were off property in 2007 for our honeymoon; some time at Universal, did Dive Quest & Backstage Magic tours + MNSSHP. She then admitted that Disney parks + staying On Property was better. :goodvibes All Star Movies (Preferred location room) in 2008 for my BD- 6 nights, only 3 park days + 1/2 day when we did DiveQuest. She decided Pop was nicer but still didn't like walking so much for everything. Neither of us like getting stuck with two double beds. So, BLT's location, the monorail, and guaranteed queen bed in a studio = enough to convenience her "let" me buy DVC after touring on that trip and giving a verbal commitment our last day @ WDW. (My guide was off so we finished everything by mail...)

Prior to that I stayed in All Star Music twice and off property once with my ex.

Now my plan is to pay roughly Value preferred location room rack rates (factoring the purchase price over the life of the contract + annual dues) for a MUCH MUCH better DVC studio, usually @ home in BLT or VGC [once that paperwork finishes; my add on isn't complete yet!]. We'd like to eventually try them all one by one if we can @ 7 months, though...

Devil's advocate, I stayed off property about 5 times and later at several Deluxe hotels w/ my parents growing up; Poly once, Contemporary once, and Wilderness Lodge once.

All told that is 14 times to WDW to date. Not many to most of you here on the boards but still a LOT more than many people I know. I also stayed at Disneyland Hotel in the '90s with my parents and Grand Californian in Nov. 2008 w/ DW (DPs from BLT rock! We had Paradise Pier booked but canceled it). No non-US Disney YET, but give me time...

Interestingly, I've never stayed at a Disney moderate, and probably never will at this point. The song "I Go to Extremes" comes to mind!

[sajetto]

Prior to buying DVC my husband and I stayed in values. At the time we were staying in values we were all about commando touring and were also very frugal. We bought in because our vacations habits have been changing over time. We started with 300 points at ages 22 and 26 and paid cash (currently own 601 points). Now at ages 25 and 29 and a baby on the way, our tastes, style, and needs have changed. I don't think that its a safe assumption to say that those who stay in values can't afford DVC because there are so many that don't feel the need for the size of accomodations. If it were not for the fact that our disney trips increased so much and that our habits changed, we'd still be staying in POP.

[redrosesix]

I don't think it would be safe to generalize about guests who stay in Value resorts. Pop has 2700 rooms and each of the AS resorts has about 1800, I think. That accounts for over 8000 rooms, so tens of thousands of guests per year.

And there are how many DVC rooms at each current DVC resort? I'm guessing no more than 500.

I'm also not sure that a Value DVC would be mostly suites -- it seems like the most sold out category of DVC is the grand villas. I could see DVC adding more of these at a Value DVC, just like it is safe to assume they will be adding more family suites for regular resort guests (which can have up to 6 people). This is the market that WDW seems to be losing to the off-site resorts. IMHO, the target market for this would be young families who would otherwise be renting 2 rooms or have to stay off-site.

[Dean]

I don't think it would be safe to generalize about guests who stay in Value resorts. Pop has 2700 rooms and each of the AS resorts has about 1800, I think. That accounts for over 8000 rooms, so tens of thousands of guests per year.

And there are how many DVC rooms at each current DVC resort? I'm guessing no more than 500.

I'm also not sure that a Value DVC would be mostly suites -- it seems like the most sold out category of DVC is the grand villas. I could see DVC adding more of these at a Value DVC, just like it is safe to assume they will be adding more family suites for regular resort guests (which can have up to 6 people). This is the market that WDW seems to be losing to the off-site resorts. IMHO, the target market for this would be young families who would otherwise be renting 2 rooms or have to stay off-site.Actually you must generalize to go forward with a discussion on this topic. That's not to say what each and every guest will do or how they will act but in this case, will enough be interested to make a profit, justify the new direction, justify the competition with the existing DVC, etc. Off site will be cheaper regardless, same for DVC. There is a larger pool of guests that stay off site than on property and many of them prefer to do so independent of the price. I can generally stay off property for about $300 a week in a 2 BR usually in resorts that in many ways are the equal or better than the DVC resorts. I can also generally get a 1 or 2 BR DVC for around $400-600 for a week through exchange. Which I do depends on what my goals and ideas are for the trip.

I have no doubt there would be interest in such a venture, the question is enough interest (payment ability, $$$, etc) from those that would not seriously consider DVC at a high enough price to justify the other risks, costs and aggravations of such an undertaking.

When I compared studios above, I did so for simplicity. I would expect larger units as well if this were to happen though I'm not sure 3 BR would be in order. They'd have to research it and decide if giving up the extra space would be worth it for such a system. A 1 BR takes out 2 studios/standard rooms and so on.

[tjkraz]

I have no doubt there would be interest in such a venture, the question is enough interest (payment ability, $$$, etc) from those that would not seriously consider DVC at a high enough price to justify the other risks, costs and aggravations of such an undertaking.


I agree.

I would also add that a "Value" DVC would pillage some sales from the current Deluxe-class. I'm sure there are DVC members who were quite content with the Value accommodations until they looked at the economics of DVC.

DVC is only hurting itself when it allows people to buy into a lesser timeshare for a fraction of the money they would have otherwise spent on the deluxe-class.

[DVCGeek]

I'm sure there are DVC members who were quite content with the Value accommodations until they looked at the economics of DVC.

DVC is only hurting itself when it allows people to buy into a lesser timeshare for a fraction of the money they would have otherwise spent on the deluxe-class.

Good point - For quite a while I was that class, at least to some extent. Although the deluxe level rooms will be nice! :lmao:

[CarolMN]

Disney must have thousands of ways/suggestions to use its investment capital.

I'm positive that they calculate an ROI for every project and only those at the top of the list get serious consideration.

I just can't believe that a value DVC will ever get to the top of that list.

[Brian Noble]

I just can't believe that a value DVC will ever get to the top of that list.
Exactly. DVD can barely build "deluxe-class" resorts as fast as they sell. Why would they ever devote any of that time and energy to selling something at a lower price point?

[jodifla]

That seems snotty to me. I would imagine that many Value vacationeers would have the money, but choose to stay at the values due their commmando vacation habits.

I wasn't trying to be snotty...it's just that I think the numbers just don't add up. At a point where the price would be worth it to DVC, the cost wouldn't be worth it to people who don't care much about the accommodations, because they just aren't in them that much.