Looks like no changes in restrictions on resales this year?

[Dean]

As I've said before, I don't accept that Disney needs to worry about the resale market at all. Until someone can at least show some ballpark calculations and numbers with facts and reasonable assumptions, it is all just conjecture. I do not at all blame direct buyers who want more benefits because they paid more for essentially the same thing. But that doesn't mean I agree that is deserved.

You should talk to DVC upper management on this subject. You want us to prove to you with figures that no one else is going to have and you want to discount what has already happened, what the guides are telling some that tour and what other timeshares have done. I've come to the conclusion that you will never be happy in timesharing, that the first change you see as negative you to will likely put you in jilted lover mode. Go back and look at the 2 large reallocation threads and the large valet parking thread, this might give you some insight.

Retroactively decimating resale value for both direct and resale purchasers is a customer-hostile move. I don't think it is necessary to extrapolate that to larger slices of life to understand or discuss it. I just don't accept it as OK or necessary. If they want to start adding value to direct purchasers, that would be a smarter and customer-rewarding move. Again, I'm not sure they need to do this at all either. But if they are suffering and need to promote sales at their prices, adding value is a better way to go.

We disagree on both points but that's OK. I doubt they have to do anything but the idea that they somehow have a responsibility to protect resale prices is simply incorrect. If you read the POS, it specifically states that one should not buy with the idea of selling or renting and that if you do, you'd be in direct competition with DVC. Not only does DVD not want you to sell for a good price, they don't want you to be able to sell at all. It's not that they want to hurt the member, they just want every sale and no, I don't have access to their internal memos.

DVD is the sales arm and they are totally separate and somewhat unrelated to DVC or DVCMC. They have different agenda's. Actually there likely aren't enough things they could do to add to retail that would serve their purposes so by default, they'll have to take away from resale members. This is a principle in timesharing, one that I don't think there's anyway to get around, that the sales arm is in competition, not partnership, with the members. I think you can expect further changes in the future and they will certainly be negative to most members. If this issue is a deal breaker to you, and it seems it is by the tone of your posts, you shouldn't participate.

 

[bighoo93]

You should talk to DVC upper management on this subject. You want us to prove to you with figures that no one else is going to have and you want to discount what has already happened, what the guides are telling some that tour and what other timeshares have done. I've come to the conclusion that you will never be happy in timesharing, that the first change you see as negative you to will likely put you in jilted lover mode.

When people make assertions of fact that require evidence, I'd like to see the evidence and reasoning before accepting it as fact or understanding that it is just conjecture. That's all. Does that seem unreasonable?

Perhaps I will be like the jilted lover. But maybe that is better than being the abused spouse who has taken so many beatings that she blames herself and finds a never-end list of rationalizations to justify her abuser's actions.

We disagree on both points but that's OK. I doubt they have to do anything but the idea that they somehow have a responsibility to protect resale prices is simply incorrect.

I've specifically said I don't believe they have a responsibility to protect resale prices. Just like someone who punches you in the face doesn't have a responsibility to be your bodyguard.

DVD is the sales arm and they are totally separate and somewhat unrelated to DVC or DVCMC. They have different agenda's. Actually there likely aren't enough things they could do to add to retail that would serve their purposes so by default, they'll have to take away from resale members. This is a principle in timesharing, one that I don't think there's anyway to get around, that the sales arm is in competition, not partnership, with the members.

I don't dispute that, but different units and CERTAINLY different business functions of the same company or unit do not act independently. At least not in decently-run businesses.

I think you can expect further changes in the future and they will certainly be negative to most members. If this issue is a deal breaker to you, and it seems it is by the tone of your posts, you shouldn't participate.

Honestly, Dean, I don't know why you are making this personal. I value your knowledge and experience with timeshares, but I didn't ask for or want your advice on whether I should participate or not (I already own at SSR, as I have made clear many times here).

 

[WebmasterDoc]

Retroactively decimating resale value for both direct and resale purchasers is a customer-hostile move. I don't think it is necessary to extrapolate that to larger slices of life to understand or discuss it. I just don't accept it as OK or necessary. If they want to start adding value to direct purchasers, that would be a smarter and customer-rewarding move. Again, I'm not sure they need to do this at all either. But if they are suffering and need to promote sales at their prices, adding value is a better way to go.

The problem with chastising DVC for decimating anything is that the language is clearly stated in the POS that they have every right to do so and we all agreed to that when we purchased.

The language states that purchase should NOT be made with an expectation of ownwership being an investment, that rental activity and selling a contract would be in competition with DVC, that all sales are required to go thru ROFR and that all aspects of the DVC programs may be modified without consulation with or approval of the members.

Over the years many aspects have been changed - point charts for DVC Resorts (and all other options), RCI/II/RCI as World Passport partner, adding reservation fees for some programs, resorts (and point requirements) available in the Concierge Collection, banking deadlines, Borrowing restrictions (originally one per years, modifed to allow multiple transfers, returned to once per year), pool hopping restrictions on new resorts, Holiday Priority list for reservations during the last week of the year, instituting program limitations for resale purchases made after March, 2011, reducing the Home Resort reservation period from the current 7 months to one month, adding a minimum stay requirement (currently 1 night), etc. .

Can DVC/DVD restrict the ability for members to rent reservations? - I don't believe so based on the POS but they could certainly place restrictions on name changes once a reservation has been made (making any changes only after canceling and rebooking based on availability), have charges for such changes, and many other possible modifications to current policy. These could be added only for resale purchasers and continue to be available at no charge for direct purchasers.

Calling this "Retroactive Decimation" is bit of a stretch when the ability to do so has been available in POS documents since the beginning of DVC and updated by DVC on a regular basis over time. The only decimating affect I see from from such changes might be to potential resale purchasers if they have a desire to use points for cruises and non-DVC resorts. For savvy resale purchasers, this should not present much of an obstacle (if any), but the vast majority of first-time purchasers are likely impressed of those perceived "advantages" if they are even aware of the resale market.

There is an option (also in the POS) available to owners at each resort where we can replace DVCMC as the managing entity for our resort. Many of the issues that are "Retroactively decimating" resale value could be reversed. The ability to make this change is explained in the POS and would allow the new management (either made up of owners of the resort or by another management entity) to make whatever rules they wish regarding these external programs. The end-date of the present resorts could not be changed (except by negotiation with Disney) but the ability to exchange and even the available exchanges could be modified in any way desired. The new management would need to negotiate for all resort services - front desk, maintenance, housekeeping, textile servies, landscaping, transportation (bus, boat, monorail), security, recreation, Disney Collection, Concierge Collection, World Passport, etc., etc., etc. Any resort where owners decide to make such a change would then no longer be included in the Disney Vacation Club and would not have access to any DVC Rresorts unless they were able to negotiate such an exchange. All existing programs and perks (PAP, Member Cruise, Recreation, dining/merchandise discounts, etc.) would all need to be negotiated by the management of the resort(s) eliminating DVC as their management entity. I can imagine those negotiations could be quite a challenge.

There are certainly options to allowing DVC to "decimate" resale value.

Be careful what you ask for.

 

[Dean]

When people make assertions of fact that require evidence, I'd like to see the evidence and reasoning before accepting it as fact or understanding that it is just conjecture. That's all. Does that seem unreasonable?

In this situation it is because it's not going to be available in a format to satisfy you. Honestly, the evidence it there, it just has to be extrapolated and put together. There is not going to be a formal report FROM DVD that's going to spell this out, it seems that's all that would satisfy you.

Perhaps I will be like the jilted lover. But maybe that is better than being the abused spouse who has taken so many beatings that she blames herself and finds a never-end list of rationalizations to justify her abuser's actions.

Actually I'd put both of those analogies on the same side. Based on your posts it seems you'd be setting yourself up for heartache to cont with DVC. Timesharing is risk without control and with precious little protection.

I've specifically said I don't believe they have a responsibility to protect resale prices. Just like someone who punches you in the face doesn't have a responsibility to be your bodyguard.

Bad analogy. Maybe a better one would be your interest rate on a credit card. They can change it almost at will.

I don't dispute that, but different units and CERTAINLY different business functions of the same company or unit do not act independently. At least not in decently-run businesses.

Actually they do, this happens all the time in business. For Disney, you have a number if independently run businesses and they often have competing agenda's. If you can't get over the total separation and conflicting agenda's of DVD and DVC/DVCMC, you prove my point that you don't seem to be a person who's going to be happy with owning a timeshare.

Honestly, Dean, I don't know why you are making this personal. I value your knowledge and experience with timeshares, but I didn't ask for or want your advice on whether I should participate or not (I already own at SSR, as I have made clear many times here).

I apologize if it came across as personal, that isn't my intent. All I can respond to is what you post. Did you understand these issues when you bought in? Did you buy retail without understanding timeshares? Even worse, did you buy resale without understanding these issues?

I'm sure they are going to prove this issue with their actions, not paperwork.

 

[bighoo93]

In this situation it is because it's not going to be available in a format to satisfy you. Honestly, the evidence it there, it just has to be extrapolated and put together. There is not going to be a formal report FROM DVD that's going to spell this out, it seems that's all that would satisfy you.

If the evidence is there, then great. But in the cases I'm talking about, it hasn't been provided. I'm not blaming someone if it isn't available. I charitably assume that when someone makes an assertion they understand what is required to support it and that they have that evidence or can point to what it is, at least. I do get suspicious, however, when someone gets testy and defensive about an honest question regarding support for their assertion.

Bad analogy.

No, let me spell out the point. Just because I don't want someone to purposely do me harm doesn't mean I have an expectation that they will actively protect me from harm. When I express dismay that some suggest DVC would purposely set out to destroy resale value, you instead argue that I am claiming they need to protect resale value. They are not the same thing.

Actually they do, this happens all the time in business. For Disney, you have a number if independently run businesses and they often have competing agenda's. If you can't get over the total separation and conflicting agenda's of DVD and DVC/DVCMC, you prove my point that you don't seem to be a person who's going to be happy with owning a timeshare.

What I'm not going to be able to get over is an understanding of and experience with corporate strategy and organizational management. I continue to wonder why you must make this personal about me. Can't we just discuss the issues at hand with civility?

I apologize if it came across as personal, that isn't my intent. All I can respond to is what you post. Did you understand these issues when you bought in? Did you buy retail without understanding timeshares? Even worse, did you buy resale without understanding these issues?

As I've said repeatedly (and you among others disagree, which is fine), I believe DVC is different from other timeshares. I've attended other timeshare and vacation club presentations and offers, and I would never buy into them. Ever. I have no respect for high-pressure sales tactics, and I am generally skeptical of what I regard as a relatively slimy and sleezy industry. So it is no small deal that I bought into DVC. It is not that I need to read more on TUG or that I don't believe you that the timeshare industry does these many things that earn the industry its poor reputation. I trust that you are correct about all of that. It is that I believe, rightly or wrongly, that Disney (which owns DVD and manages it as part of their company and corporate strategy) will be different because Disney has a far, far greater end than just selling timeshares. If that were their only business, or its businesses were not integrated toward a coordinated end, then I would agree that they would likely follow all the same tactics and I would never buy in. But they are different in this way, and that is why I don't think they will follow all the same practices.

 

[Missyrose]

If the evidence is there, then great. But in the cases I'm talking about, it hasn't been provided. I'm not blaming someone if it isn't available. I charitably assume that when someone makes an assertion they understand what is required to support it and that they have that evidence or can point to what it is, at least. I do get suspicious, however, when someone gets testy and defensive about an honest question regarding support for their assertion.



No, let me spell out the point. Just because I don't want someone to purposely do me harm doesn't mean I have an expectation that they will actively protect me from harm. When I express dismay that some suggest DVC would purposely set out to destroy resale value, you instead argue that I am claiming they need to protect resale value. They are not the same thing.



What I'm not going to be able to get over is an understanding of and experience with corporate strategy and organizational management. I continue to wonder why you must make this personal about me. Can't we just discuss the issues at hand with civility?



As I've said repeatedly (and you among others disagree, which is fine), I believe DVC is different from other timeshares. I've attended other timeshare and vacation club presentations and offers, and I would never buy into them. Ever. I have no respect for high-pressure sales tactics, and I am generally skeptical of what I regard as a relatively slimy and sleezy industry. So it is no small deal that I bought into DVC. It is not that I need to read more on TUG or that I don't believe you that the timeshare industry does these many things that earn the industry its poor reputation. I trust that you are correct about all of that. It is that I believe, rightly or wrongly, that Disney (which owns DVD and manages it as part of their company and corporate strategy) will be different because Disney has a far, far greater end than just selling timeshares. If that were their only business, or its businesses were not integrated toward a coordinated end, then I would agree that they would likely follow all the same tactics and I would never buy in. But they are different in this way, and that is why I don't think they will follow all the same practices.

Couple of things from someone who has watched you argue the same things over and over again in several different threads. Have you read the POS? If you have, then you'd know what DVC/DVD is legally bound to give you based on the contract you signed.

And just as an observation, Dean has been nothing but civil in the discussion and he has based everything he's told you in facts, yet you continue to argue that Disney won't do any of this.

It makes NO DIFFERENCE that Disney as a whole brings in $42 billion each year. We are talking about a single subdivision that is run independently of the other divisions. DVD will do what it feels it needs to to increase its own revenue (and as has been stated by many the experts on this board, its ONLY revenue is from direct DVC sales -- it doesn't care how much you spend on tickets/meals/souvenirs.)

Feel free to keep arguing that no one has backed up what they've said with facts. But the fact of the matter is, the only facts you really need to know is what is guaranteed in the POS -- and it isn't much.

 

[bighoo93]

Couple of things from someone who has watched you argue the same things over and over again in several different threads. Have you read the POS? If you have, then you'd know what DVC/DVD is legally bound to give you based on the contract you signed.

Yes, and I haven't argued about what DVD is legally obligated to provide.

Feel free to keep arguing that no one has backed up what they've said with facts. But the fact of the matter is, the only facts you really need to know is what is guaranteed in the POS -- and it isn't much.

1) I've never argued that no one has backed up what they said with facts
2) That isn't the only fact I need to know
3) I've never questioned what is guaranteed in the POS
4) it isn't relevant to the conversation at all.

But other than that, good point.

 

[Missyrose]

Yes, and I haven't argued about what DVD is legally obligated to provide.



1) I've never argued that no one has backed up what they said with facts
2) That isn't the only fact I need to know
3) I've never questioned what is guaranteed in the POS
4) it isn't relevant to the conversation at all.

But other than that, good point.

Wow, talk about a civil discussion.

 

[bighoo93]

The problem with chastising DVC for decimating anything is that the language is clearly stated in the POS that they have every right to do so and we all agreed to that when we purchased.

I can (and do) agree that they are legally allowed to do certain things, and yet at the same time I can (and do) believe that they should not do those things and that it would harm the value of my membership. Others can disagree, but there is an important distinction between arguing what DVD is legally allowed to do (which I believe I have NEVER done), and what they should do, as both a smart business decision and a consumer-friendly policy. I can see that this has been a point of confusion among many people, I hope I have cleared it up here.

Further, I can believe that they are unlikely to do certain things. This is purely guessing, since I can't see into the future as well as some apparently can, but I can clearly explain why I believe it, as well as acknowledge that I don't know with any certainty.

Calling this "Retroactive Decimation" is bit of a stretch when the ability to do so has been available in POS documents since the beginning of DVC and updated by DVC on a regular basis over time. The only decimating affect I see from from such changes might be to potential resale purchasers if they have a desire to use points for cruises and non-DVC resorts. For savvy resale purchasers, this should not present much of an obstacle (if any), but the vast majority of first-time purchasers are likely impressed of those perceived "advantages" if they are even aware of the resale market.

I agree, "retroactive" is not the right term. Decimating really depends on the nature of the change. Minor changes, such as the ones that have already taken place, would not be likely to have that sort of impact. Restricting use to home resort-only probably would.

There are certainly options to allowing DVC to "decimate" resale value.

Be careful what you ask for.

Obviously, I'm the last person who would be asking for such things. Interestingly, some posters actually do seem to be. Or at least, are indifferent to them if not outright hoping Disney implements them.

 

[bighoo93]

Wow, talk about a civil discussion.

I find strawman responses to be uncivil, yes.

 

[Chuck S]

The Walt Disney Company answers to wall street and it's stockholders. The investment houses control a great deal of stock , and expect (perhaps unrealistically) a specific ROI to recommend the purchase of the stock. Each division of the company has to return, independently, a decent P&L, or that division will be closed/sold off. It is quite possible that DVC & all the DVC resorts could be sold to another big timeshare company, if their profit margin were to tank. That is simply how large companies with all those divisions work. Or the CEO could be called on the carpet and replaced, as we saw with Michael Eisner. Contrary to what people want to believe, Eisner was not replaced because he "lost the magic." He was effectively replaced because the stocks were undervalued and the profits were down. The investment houses would never have given a no confidence vote based solely upon Roy Disney's "lost the magic" campaign if the profits were rolling in. It is how all companies seem to work, at least since the 1990s. DVC/DVD will do whatever it feels is necessary to maximize profitability without regard to current owners ability to sell at a profit or even remotely break even, and actually, legally, that is what they should do. They have a legal responsibility to maximize profit for the investors.

DVC has spelled out their responsibilities, and our rights, in the POS. To expect more is, IMO, unreasonable, based upon those legal agreements. I'm grateful for the perks and discounts we receive, because they are certainly not guaranteed. Knowing that I actually purchased a timeshare, and not a piece of the magic, regardless of advertising slogans, I expect Disney/DVD/DVC to live up to their contractual obligations...anything else is gravy.

No company, Disney or not, operates on pixie dust and magic.

 

[spruce]

Yeah, I quit yesterday. All of this is hypothetical anyway until Disney, dvd or dvc does or does not make any changes. Disney could ignore past practices in the industry spread some pixie dust and imagineer solutions that keep everyone in their happy place.

 

[Dean]

If the evidence is there, then great. But in the cases I'm talking about, it hasn't been provided. I'm not blaming someone if it isn't available. I charitably assume that when someone makes an assertion they understand what is required to support it and that they have that evidence or can point to what it is, at least. I do get suspicious, however, when someone gets testy and defensive about an honest question regarding support for their assertion.

If you want absolute proof on such matters, consider all timeshare discussion sites closed immediately. IMO the proof is there, you just have to put it all together.

No, let me spell out the point. Just because I don't want someone to purposely do me harm doesn't mean I have an expectation that they will actively protect me from harm. When I express dismay that some suggest DVC would purposely set out to destroy resale value, you instead argue that I am claiming they need to protect resale value. They are not the same thing.

IMO the fact it bothers you at all contradicts your assertion. It's not that Disney wants to do you or anyone else harm, it's just that the act of pushing people toward retail does so secondarily. When sales were sailing along, they were happy to stay in their own little world with some attn to ROFR but as soon as sales slowed and the market prices dipped low enough that they couldn't keep up using ROFR, so did their contentment with ignoring the resale process.

What I'm not going to be able to get over is an understanding of and experience with corporate strategy and organizational management. I continue to wonder why you must make this personal about me. Can't we just discuss the issues at hand with civility?

I think we are, at least so far, I'm sorry you disagree on that point.

As I've said repeatedly (and you among others disagree, which is fine), I believe DVC is different from other timeshares. I've attended other timeshare and vacation club presentations and offers, and I would never buy into them. Ever. I have no respect for high-pressure sales tactics, and I am generally skeptical of what I regard as a relatively slimy and sleezy industry. So it is no small deal that I bought into DVC. It is not that I need to read more on TUG or that I don't believe you that the timeshare industry does these many things that earn the industry its poor reputation. I trust that you are correct about all of that. It is that I believe, rightly or wrongly, that Disney (which owns DVD and manages it as part of their company and corporate strategy) will be different because Disney has a far, far greater end than just selling timeshares. If that were their only business, or its businesses were not integrated toward a coordinated end, then I would agree that they would likely follow all the same tactics and I would never buy in. But they are different in this way, and that is why I don't think they will follow all the same practices.

We do disagree on all levels of this paragraph starting with the idea that Disney is different or should be held to a higher standard. Disney is not the only big player with risk in other areas, Wyndham & Marriott are good examples of others. As for excluding other companies based on sales issues, your losing a very large potential benefit based on your apparent inability to separate out the management from the sales issue, your choice of course.

 

[Dean]

Yes, and I haven't argued about what DVD is legally obligated to provide.

If I'm understanding the gist of your posts, you're essentially arguing what they should do outside of what they can do. To me what they can and can't do legally and what they should do are essentially the same thing. We've seen the argument before usually with words like fair, reasonable and the like and often accompanied with threat's along the lines of I'll sell, never buy again and tell everyone I know to do the same. Often the stance is something to the effect they can't take away from the way it was when one bought and/or with associated "the guide promised". My posts are my opinion but they are based on 18 years of experience with DVC along with 17 years experience with BBS related to DVC. For non DVC timeshares subtract about 1-2 years from each of those times.

1) I've never argued that no one has backed up what they said with facts
2) That isn't the only fact I need to know
3) I've never questioned what is guaranteed in the POS
4) it isn't relevant to the conversation at all.

But other than that, good point.

As I asked before and maybe you said and I missed it, what facts do you need and why? IMO the POS and what they can and can't do is exactly the issue. Other than that it's simply their decision as to what to do and how to do it. I would agree that there are consequences but the reality is that the backlash for most issues would be FAR less than many here think and there's likely nothing they could do from a timeshare standpoint that would harm Disney enough for them to step in.

 

[bighoo93]

If I'm understanding the gist of your posts, you're essentially arguing what they should do outside of what they can do. To me what they can and can't do legally and what they should do are essentially the same thing.

Yes, over and over again, that's what I've been saying. If you don't view them as different, then we just see things differently. I trust that you and others are completely correct that Disney can do just about whatever they want with respect to DVC membership rights (some exceptions have been noted, I am not trying to make a categorized list here). And inside that universe of possible things, there are some that I think would be smart decisions and some that would not, some that I would greet with favor and some that I would not, and many that I wouldn't care at all about. But really, I don't think I've ever argued about what they are legally allowed to do.

We've seen the argument before usually with words like fair, reasonable and the like and often accompanied with threat's along the lines of I'll sell, never buy again and tell everyone I know to do the same. Often the stance is something to the effect they can't take away from the way it was when one bought and/or with associated "the guide promised".

Maybe that explains why my questions have been met with an assumption that I am saying things I have not actually said. I can understand how that can happen. But please, don't hold me accountable for what others have done or said before. I'll make my own case and you can agree, reject or ignore it on its own. I don't think I have ever once made the case that Disney "can't take away" whatever it was when I bought it or referenced anything the guide promised. I would estimate at least a dozen times that this has been argued back to me though, as if I had. DVD is free to do what they want legally, and I am free to hold my own opinion of that. Would you agree to that much? Surely I am not obligated to approve of any and all decisions they could possibly legally make. Right?

 

[Dean]

Yes, over and over again, that's what I've been saying. If you don't view them as different, then we just see things differently. I trust that you and others are completely correct that Disney can do just about whatever they want with respect to DVC membership rights (some exceptions have been noted, I am not trying to make a categorized list here). And inside that universe of possible things, there are some that I think would be smart decisions and some that would not, some that I would greet with favor and some that I would not, and many that I wouldn't care at all about. But really, I don't think I've ever argued about what they are legally allowed to do.

To me the only questions are what they can do and what they do, the rest is just speculation and personal opinion. Of course each member will have to make a judgement as to how any change affects them but unless one can argue that what they actually do is outside what is allowed in the POS, it's a moot point other than simply to complain. However, to complain about it really makes no sense if it's legal within the FL statues and the POS.

Maybe that explains why my questions have been met with an assumption that I am saying things I have not actually said. I can understand how that can happen. But please, don't hold me accountable for what others have done or said before. I'll make my own case and you can agree, reject or ignore it on its own. I don't think I have ever once made the case that Disney "can't take away" whatever it was when I bought it or referenced anything the guide promised. I would estimate at least a dozen times that this has been argued back to me though, as if I had. DVD is free to do what they want legally, and I am free to hold my own opinion of that. Would you agree to that much? Surely I am not obligated to approve of any and all decisions they could possibly legally make. Right?

As I noted above and written before I read this paragraph. I'm still not sure I know what your actual concern is. My assumption is they WILL make changes and those changes will be negative to most people and neutral to most of the rest. The reality is that unless they institute a VIP system, they can't really hurt the members other than emotionally. If they take away every option and every perk including the BVTC, all discounts plus what's already removed; it doesn't change the basic system or whether DVC is a good choice or not for essentially anyone. A VIP system certainly could upset the apple cart though.

 

[DougEMG]

My assumption is that DVC has some sort of sales target that they want/need to make. If those targets aren't made then they'll take actions to make those targets. Those could be anything from increasing the perks for people buying direct to placing more restrictions on resales to coming out with dvc2 or a VIP system.

But I also believe that whatever they do can not tarnish the Disney brand name. After all how many people buy now who would not normally ever buy a timeshare, but trust Disney to look after them. Disney would not want to destroy that trust.

I guess it comes down to what exactly would tarnish their image and what wouldn't.

 

[bighoo93]

My assumption is that DVC has some sort of sales target that they want/need to make. If those targets aren't made then they'll take actions to make those targets. Those could be anything from increasing the perks for people buying direct to placing more restrictions on resales to coming out with dvc2 or a VIP system.

But I also believe that whatever they do can not tarnish the Disney brand name. After all how many people buy now who would not normally ever buy a timeshare, but trust Disney to look after them. Disney would not want to destroy that trust.

I would agree with you, but some would say that DVD is completely independent of Disney so they don't worry at all about that. That seems extremely odd to me, but I don't know for certain.

 

[disneynutz]

My assumption is that DVC has some sort of sales target that they want/need to make. If those targets aren't made then they'll take actions to make those targets. Those could be anything from increasing the perks for people buying direct to placing more restrictions on resales to coming out with dvc2 or a VIP system.

But I also believe that whatever they do can not tarnish the Disney brand name. After all how many people buy now who would not normally ever buy a timeshare, but trust Disney to look after them. Disney would not want to destroy that trust.

I guess it comes down to what exactly would tarnish their image and what wouldn't.

Disney knows how many owners are internet active, they track who books online, who access the member website, who uses the DIS, who buys direct and who buys resale.

They know what effect the March restriction has had on sales and they know how far they can push it and if they push too far, they can modify their actions and say that they did it in response to member feed back.

Restrictions are used in business to increase sales all of the time and so are rewards. I really don't expect DVD to be any different.

Truthfully I don't really care if they change the buying rules, I don't expect our contracts to worth anything when we sell anyway, last I checked we are down around $30,000 and that number would be larger if we hadn't purchased some of our contracts years ago.

I do wish that they would take better care of the members and do a better job of providing clean and well maintained rooms.

Bill

 

[montrealdisneylovers]

My assumption is that DVC has some sort of sales target that they want/need to make. If those targets aren't made then they'll take actions to make those targets. Those could be anything from increasing the perks for people buying direct to placing more restrictions on resales to coming out with dvc2 or a VIP system.

But I also believe that whatever they do can not tarnish the Disney brand name. After all how many people buy now who would not normally ever buy a timeshare, but trust Disney to look after them. Disney would not want to destroy that trust.I guess it comes down to what exactly would tarnish their image and what wouldn't.

I am one of those people who is very negative against timeshares yet I viewed Disney as being different.

Given social media these days-facebook, twitter and whatever the next thing is-companies have to be that much more careful in protecting their image and I believe Disney is very aware of that fact. Maintaining a fair resale market should be important to them.