WDW resort going forward

[tjkraz]

I am mainly talking about that they should invest more into the parks than resorts.

If you really believe that NOT building DVC Poly (or Wilderness Lodge, or Caribbean Beach) means Disney would re-direct that money toward a couple "E" ticket attractions, you are sorely mistaken.

This isn't a case where The Walt Disney Company only has $100K to spend and needs to decide if they want to build another DVC or use it for an attraction. The decision-making processes behind those investments are totally separate.

 

[Planogirl]

If you really believe that NOT building DVC Poly (or Wilderness Lodge, or Caribbean Beach) means Disney would re-direct that money toward a couple "E" ticket attractions, you are sorely mistaken.

This isn't a case where The Walt Disney Company only has $100K to spend and needs to decide if they want to build another DVC or use it for an attraction. The decision-making processes behind those investments are totally separate.

If it's that cut and dried then there is something seriously wrong with those who build attractions. They have allowed way too much to become stagnant and dull and to me that it just about as bad as empty pavilions.

 

[Disneychick75]

If it's that cut and dried then there is something seriously wrong with those who build attractions. They have allowed way too much to become stagnant and dull and to me that it just about as bad as empty pavilions.

 

[wallrock]

If it's that cut and dried then there is something seriously wrong with those who build attractions. They have allowed way too much to become stagnant and dull and to me that it just about as bad as empty pavilions.

They've allowed stagnation to come in because, quite simply, they can.

The crowds continue to pack into the parks and the suits continue to find ingenuous ways to repackage everything into 'special events'. There wasn't much of an investment in the Villains Unleashed event yet they charged seventy bucks for countless folks to get all cozy together. Now the Halloween party has taken that concept a bit further with an embedded event of its own and charging more for it than the up front cost of the party itself. I'm sure that will sell out as well.

The stagnation will go away once guests vote with their wallets, much like they did at California Adventure. Until then, count on more hard ticket items to keep the profits sky-high.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I've never seen the connection between Disney hotels and theme park crowd levels. People don't choose to visit the Disney parks solely because of the existence of another Disney hotel. When they opened Art of Animation, it didn't prompt more people to visit WDW...it simply gave them another lodging alternative AFTER they had already decided to visit.

Agree...
But that doesn't mean that DISNEY does equate resort construction/ expenditures as a block to further strengthening of parks... Particularly in the swamp

"Only so much money to go around", you know?

If you ignore every shred of financial data...of course

 

[rteetz]

If it's that cut and dried then there is something seriously wrong with those who build attractions. They have allowed way too much to become stagnant and dull and to me that it just about as bad as empty pavilions.

Thats what I am getting at. Really DVC and the parks should work together. DVC members are guests who will keep coming back, they should want fresh and new things in the parks and that just isn't happening.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Ugh. Yeah, because the people paying $800 per night for Poly rooms and $30 for cheap "2014" t-shirts and $60 per day for a pre-paid dining plan are completely blameless.

Disney has over 25,000 hotel rooms vs. about 3500 villas. While Disney obviously values the returns it gets from DVC point sales, it's a little misguided to hold DVC accountable for all that ails Walt Disney World.

I tend to agree... While the expansion of DVC shares some blame for stagnation... One would think...
It is often used as a scapegoat.

As this post so eloquently points... Plenty of Deserved blame to go around.

Bad consumers...my broken record (actually one of many)

 

[rteetz]

Duplicate post

 

[Planogirl]

They've allowed stagnation to come in because, quite simply, they can.

The crowds continue to pack into the parks and the suits continue to find ingenuous ways to repackage everything into 'special events'. There wasn't much of an investment in the Villains Unleashed event yet they charged seventy bucks for countless folks to get all cozy together. Now the Halloween party has taken that concept a bit further with an embedded event of its own and charging more for it than the up front cost of the party itself. I'm sure that will sell out as well.

The stagnation will go away once guests vote with their wallets, much like they did at California Adventure. Until then, count on more hard ticket items to keep the profits sky-high.

I'm not one of those who likes to go on about how things used to be and all of that (except Epcot occasionally ) but I honestly believe that there was a time when quality was of primary importance and that put Disney where they are today. I don't understand why that concept has seemed to all but disappear in some cases.

Thats what I am getting at. Really DVC and the parks should work together. DVC members are guests who will keep coming back, they should want fresh and new things in the parks and that just isn't happening.

The trouble is that people are voting with their wallets no matter how lackluster Disney creativity often is nowadays. As long as they draw huge crowds, they just don't seem to care much about new things and I doubt that DVC will make a difference as long as people keep buying.

We're guilty of this too! We have seen the constant downturn of the parks and yet we keep on going back. I might reach my breaking point soon but I haven't so far.

 

[clsteve]

Of course they are going to continue selling DVC points...for as long as the market exists. I'm well aware of everything you outlined in this last post. The line I was specifically commenting on was this:

"If people stopped buying DVC that may help change disneys focus onto something else finally."

Disney doesn't have a single focus. Just because they are building a timeshare resort at the Poly or Wilderness Lodge doesn't mean that managerial attention or funds are being diverted from elsewhere.

A comment like this is akin to saying "gee, I wish people would quit buying Dole Whips so Disney could focus on something else." Despite the existence--and popularity--of Dole Whips, Disney still finds time to focus on turkey legs, cheeseburgers, candy apples, cornets and literally hundreds of other snacks.

Is DVC profitable for Disney? Yes, absolutely.

Is repeat business generated by DVC responsible for some stagnation in the parks? Perhaps, but the degree is debatable. DVC villas represent less than 15% of all Disney-owned lodging on site. They still have a heck of a lot of rooms to fill aside from DVC...and many more off-site day guests to attract.

Bottom line is you can't tell people to "stop buying DVC" any more than you can tell others to stop buying overpriced Poly & Contemporary hotel rooms, t-shirts, turkey legs, dining plans, Villain party tickets, etc.

I agree with much of what you posted above.

To the bolded: I have to disagree a bit since they've been almost myopically focused on the Resorts side of the house along with expanding ancillary (additional charge) offerings like Splittsville, Disney Springs, etc., rather than the Parks side.

Look at what they've built since 2007: AKV, BLT, AoA, GFV, with PRV soon to come.

If even half of what's in the Jim Hill/Len Testa podcast comes to fruition - that an amazing amount of continued effort, expense, headcount, and liabilities increase when compared to the Parks side and will be a significant increase in DVC percentage and of Deluxe, especially.

One thing all of this highlights without a doubt - Disney on-site guests, and DVC in particular, have a higher spend rate and use those ancillary services more.

It makes sense in that DVC'rs have a higher length of stay and have a higher number of visits. I mean, if you're been to the Parks 15 times and are staying for a week, there's a much higher chance of skipping Parks days and hitting all those pricey add-ons like the Spa, or Magnolia for golf, or Splittsville, or guide fishing the lakes, etc. Length of Stay is a big concern for Disney.

Bottom line, their investment shows they're still aggressively "farming" the existing plot and continuing to do everything they can to increase the number of locked in, longer staying, longer spending, DVC'rs.

 

[tjkraz]

One thing all of this highlights without a doubt - Disney on-site guests, and DVC in particular, have a higher spend rate and use those ancillary services more.

It makes sense in that DVC'rs have a higher length of stay and have a higher number of visits. I mean, if you're been to the Parks 15 times and are staying for a week, there's a much higher chance of skipping Parks days and hitting all those pricey add-ons like the Spa, or Magnolia for golf, or Splittsville, or guide fishing the lakes, etc. Length of Stay is a big concern for Disney.

Bottom line, their investment shows they're still aggressively "farming" the existing plot and continuing to do everything they can to increase the number of locked in, longer staying, longer spending, DVC'rs.

Actually, I've frequently been told the opposite--that DVC owners tend to be on the lower end of the spectrum with regard to guest spending.

Many DVC owners purchase annual passes which are used for multiple weeks throughout that 365 day period. When we were first owners, we would buy APs every-other-year and squeeze in 3 or 4 trips on each pass using at least 2 years worth of DVC points (banking/borrowing.)

Compare that to your run-of-the-mill family vacationing at WDW who typically purchases MYW passes for just that stay. A 7-day MYW generates more revenue per day than an AP used for 15...20...25 days of park admission.

Some owners buy non-expiring passes and will use just a couple days per visit, spending far more time simply enjoying the resort amenities.

All DVC villas have kitchens, which reduces food expenses. Even if it's just cereal or frozen waffles in the morning and Uncrustables for the kids, that's money taken out of Disney's coffers. (We often travel with large groups of friends and family, and will cook entire meals in our kitchen: spaghetti, burgers on the resort grill, tacos, etc. You don't see that often with cash guests.)

And then there's merchandise sales. DVC owners don't spend nearly as much on t-shirts and other baubles as other guests.

DVC owners are important to Disney. Profit margins on point sales are quite high and it does help guarantee a certain amount of foot traffic for the parks and resorts during slower periods. It also helps shift a large portion of resort operating costs from Disney's bottom line to DVC owner dues.

But in terms of overall spending, there are other groups who do a much better job of lining Disney's proverbial pockets.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Actually, I've frequently been told the opposite--that DVC owners tend to be on the lower end of the spectrum with regard to guest spending.

Many DVC owners purchase annual passes which are used for multiple weeks throughout that 365 day period. When we were first owners, we would buy APs every-other-year and squeeze in 3 or 4 trips on each pass using at least 2 years worth of DVC points (banking/borrowing.)

Compare that to your run-of-the-mill family vacationing at WDW who typically purchases MYW passes for just that stay. A 7-day MYW generates more revenue per day than an AP used for 15...20...25 days of park admission.

Some owners buy non-expiring passes and will use just a couple days per visit, spending far more time simply enjoying the resort amenities.

All DVC villas have kitchens, which reduces food expenses. Even if it's just cereal or frozen waffles in the morning and Uncrustables for the kids, that's money taken out of Disney's coffers. (We often travel with large groups of friends and family, and will cook entire meals in our kitchen: spaghetti, burgers on the resort grill, tacos, etc. You don't see that often with cash guests.)

And then there's merchandise sales. DVC owners don't spend nearly as much on t-shirts and other baubles as other guests.

DVC owners are important to Disney. Profit margins on point sales are quite high and it does help guarantee a certain amount of foot traffic for the parks and resorts during slower periods. It also helps shift a large portion of resort operating costs from Disney's bottom line to DVC owner dues.

But in terms of overall spending, there are other groups who do a much better job of lining Disney's proverbial pockets.

I agree/resemble with all the above...
With perhaps the food expenditures being the exception.

I think one of the fundamental things that Disney has FAILED at is giving DVC members a reason to open the wallet... And they have probably done far more to put a lock on them based on the approach.

I hesitate increasing my points and frequency of travel because of the constant increases over time in cost...
And while the annual pass should "encourage" me to travel more... The upfront now actually has me debating if I feel like paying... Which is a 180 for me.

But to the point...the lack of park development, dining changes, and declining quality of merchandise has really put me in a place...As a DVC frequenter...of almost getting satisfaction from NOT spending...which is again a 180 degree change of direction/course.

DVC owners - generally speaking - one would assume would have some disposable income to throw at wdw to a fair level of confidence. If they did not believe or study that...wouldn't have built them in the first place.

But the stagnation (for me alot... For other maybe not so much) is defeating part of the main goals of DVC - out of pocket revenue.
(For the record... DVC can be summed up IMHO with 1. Reduction of maintenance costs and staff 2. Predictable long term activity and revenue 3. Predicting out of pocket spending)

And what if there's a fire behind this smoke about Caribbean?
A tremendous miscalculation... In my opinion.
Are they going to sell the points at $100 and charge 7-12 points a night for a studio?
Because that would be the approximate rack rate difference based on the parent hotels?

If they do, the old membership will have a field day with it.
In my particular area...the sharks will love the "cheap nights" and book the place solid, stretching their points for an extra week or a bigger room. Saratoga and old key west would empty out and it would be a nightmare.

No? So full price for a moderate? Tough sell there and again the existing base will cause trouble. The place may end up empty at the Saratoga point chart.
Even though Caribbean has had some of the highest occupancy in history and a huge following (i know every square inch of the place forward and back and I sure can't explain that...but whatever)

No to that?
Then "DVC moderate program"? Completely separate? no cross booking? Again...good luck there.

An enigma inside a conundrum inside a nightmare...my opinion.

 

[tjkraz]

And what if there's a fire behind this smoke about Caribbean?
A tremendous miscalculation... In my opinion.
Are they going to sell the points at $100 and charge 7-12 points a night for a studio?
Because that would be the approximate rack rate difference based on the parent hotels?

To this point, the idea behind the 7-story DVC tower is to actually build DVC villas at the current "Deluxe" standard. They have no plans to sell moderate-size villas at moderate costs. It's more a case of raising the quality of what is currently a moderate property.

Obviously there are some perceptions to be overcome with a project like that...starting with the "Moderate" label. The pool, restaurants and most other aspects of the resort would have to receive some upgrades. (Expensive, but still cheaper than building an entirely new resort...especially with hotel occupancy where it is today.) Linking waterways to Epcot and DHS would help.

Not sure what they would do with the existing Moderate-quality hotel rooms or even the resort name. Hard to create that Deluxe/DVC image with a name that's been synonymous with "Moderate" for 20 years.

If nothing else, I could see them scrapping the Moderate hotel rooms entirely and making the property 100% DVC with a modified theme and entirely new resort name. Particularly after the opening of Art of Animation, WDW really doesn't need those 2000 rooms. And again, repurposing the land and existing infrastructure is cheaper than building a new stand-alone DVC on currently undeveloped property.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

A full repurposing of Caribbean would have to be the route...

I don't see anyway around it.

They can't charge $330 a night for room 4126 in Jamaica...
And to try and slap it together without noticing would be a big mistake.

Also...a tower doesn't work there...a big pink "island themed tower" has a place where it fits...
It's called almost every other hotel in central Florida and all parts south.

They really want to build the Don Cesar?
...with half the amenities and service...of course

 

[jon18uk]

But why convert Caribbean which is selling well as a moderate resort when there is Saratoga Springs which is already DVC?

I think the issue is that Saratoga Springs isn't appealing enough for a lot of people, it is the most moderate out of all the DVC resorts (I didn't think any of the facilities were better than Port Orleans). Maybe they would be better plussing SS rather than converting CBR which is already popular.

Also removing those rooms at CBR from the moderate section would just make CS, POR and POFQ busier. AoA doesn't offer the same facilities.

 

[clsteve]

Actually, I've frequently been told the opposite--that DVC owners tend to be on the lower end of the spectrum with regard to guest spending.

Many DVC owners purchase annual passes which are used for multiple weeks throughout that 365 day period. When we were first owners, we would buy APs every-other-year and squeeze in 3 or 4 trips on each pass using at least 2 years worth of DVC points (banking/borrowing.)

Compare that to your run-of-the-mill family vacationing at WDW who typically purchases MYW passes for just that stay. A 7-day MYW generates more revenue per day than an AP used for 15...20...25 days of park admission.

Some owners buy non-expiring passes and will use just a couple days per visit, spending far more time simply enjoying the resort amenities.

All DVC villas have kitchens, which reduces food expenses. Even if it's just cereal or frozen waffles in the morning and Uncrustables for the kids, that's money taken out of Disney's coffers. (We often travel with large groups of friends and family, and will cook entire meals in our kitchen: spaghetti, burgers on the resort grill, tacos, etc. You don't see that often with cash guests.)

And then there's merchandise sales. DVC owners don't spend nearly as much on t-shirts and other baubles as other guests.

DVC owners are important to Disney. Profit margins on point sales are quite high and it does help guarantee a certain amount of foot traffic for the parks and resorts during slower periods. It also helps shift a large portion of resort operating costs from Disney's bottom line to DVC owner dues.

But in terms of overall spending, there are other groups who do a much better job of lining Disney's proverbial pockets.

People who say the bolded never look at the full picture.

You have to take in the expense side, as you pointed out. Everything from Mousekeeping to laundry-related expenses are decreased. Plus dues/maintenance fees are profit plus inflation proof. So, DVC'rs have a higher profit margin going in due to lower expense and predictable income flow YTY.

It also doesn't take into account length of stay: if the average is around 3+ days for on-site, there are a higher number of spend-days for DVC'rs. This is very important for the ancillary, high profit, offerings

Plus, too many point to AP's and how much they're saving and Disney is losing after x number of stays/trips.

AP's are like cheap rooms for repeat customers at Vegas - especially for DVC'rs. Vegas doesn't care about the lost room revenue - they just want you there for the gambling.

Disney wants you there for the extra spend days

Of course first time on-siters are going to spend more on t-shirts. But, if they have 4 day Park tickets for their 5 day stay - they're going to spend a majority of that time in the Parks with little time for the other very profitable add-ons. A 7 day guest is going to spend fewer hours in the Parks just doing their faves with more time (potentially) using their "savings" on a spa trip, golf or dropping $250 at Splittsville

And that's a big reason why hard ticket events are increasing in number and much of that is geared directly to getting additional revenue out of the same demographic we're talking about - with very minimal extra expense to Disney besides cheap give-aways. It's also the one place 15+ stay guests actually buy merchandise. The same Park we find tired and boring and leave before lunch after using our FP's just got an extra 300 bucks admission out of a family of 4 plus 200 bucks on "limited" merchandise

Disney's investment in this doesn't lie. The DVC demographic is very profitable and has disposable income. For every DVC'r that's eating 3 meals a day in their kitchen, many more are not.

 

[rteetz]

But why convert Caribbean which is selling well as a moderate resort when there is Saratoga Springs which is already DVC?

I think the issue is that Saratoga Springs isn't appealing enough for a lot of people, it is the most moderate out of all the DVC resorts (I didn't think any of the facilities were better than Port Orleans). Maybe they would be better plussing SS rather than converting CBR which is already popular.

Also removing those rooms at CBR from the moderate section would just make CS, POR and POFQ busier. AoA doesn't offer the same facilities.

Disney will create as much DVC as possible as long as it sells. There are rumors as well that DVC at the Carribean Beach would be like a moderate level DVC different than the deluxe.

 

[Josh Hendy]

Jim Hill has a new Podcast with Len Testa out today. Guess what its all about DVC!

...SNIP...

A lot of this goes along with what others are saying. Disney is not backing down from the DVC drug they have been on.

Question - how many DVC buyers go into debt to buy their timeshare? I.e. get a mortgage, or tack the amount onto their existing house mortgage, or get a mortgage on their house to pay for their timeshare? Or get a regular bank loan with either the timeshare itself or some other property used as collateral?

If the continuing DVC rapid growth is mostly based on indebtedness, i.e. driven by the Federal Reserve printing money and forcing it into the economy through the credit system (loans) ... THEN I think I can understand what is going on and why Disney is so hooked on DVC. It's getting harder and harder to make a buck the old fashioned way, by sweating to build a theme park, restaurant, a computer company, a trucking firm, or whatever. But it's getting easier and easier to make $$$$$$$ by finding some way to tap into the spigot of money being hosed into the financial system by the central banks ... in the form of debt.

If I'm wrong, and people are NOT going into debt to by DVC timeshares then please tell me where the cash IS coming from. Because every day I read articles about how the cost of living is up (food, tuition, medical insurance), wages are stagnant or shrinking, full time jobs disappearing, personal savings rate is low, people's overall net worth is shrinking (backed up by reading the anecdotes over on the Budget Board ).

Give me the straight dope on where the cash is coming from to by Disney's drug!

 

[tjkraz]

You have to take in the expense side, as you pointed out. Everything from Mousekeeping to laundry-related expenses are decreased. Plus dues/maintenance fees are profit plus inflation proof. So, DVC'rs have a higher profit margin going in due to lower expense and predictable income flow YTY.

Disney does not pay expenses on the DVC villas...but they also do not earn steady revenues from them either.

The margins are pretty easy to track due to the existence of DVC dues. A BoardWalk Preferred View Studio costs 107 points for a week in October. With dues of $6.01 per point, the operating cost of that room is $643 for the week. That includes all resort expenses, insurance, property taxes, long-term maintenance, bus & boat transportation, etc.

Meanwhile even if we assume 30% discounting on the rack rate of $448, WDW sees revenues of $2195 per week vs. expenses of $643.

Over 50 years, that cash hotel room is far more profitable than the one-time DVC sale of 107 points.

Meanwhile, I have to disagree with pretty much everything else that you said. Disney often speaks in terms of this magical figure called "Average Guest Spending." Every insider I've spoken with that would have some knowledge of the situation claims that DVC owners trend very close to the bottom of that figure.

Simply put, it's the occasional guests who are buying park tickets trip-by-trip, buying dining plans or otherwise eating most meals in Disney restaurants and gobbling up souvenirs, photo passes and other trip remembrances.

This past March I was part of a group of 8 who spent eight nights at Old Key West. We ate exactly 6 restaurant meals over that stay and our souvenir purchases were virtually nonexistent. My own family of 4 used a couple theme park days and a couple waterpark visits from non-expiring tickets that will last for years.

Disney's investment in this doesn't lie. The DVC demographic is very profitable and has disposable income.

Nah. The people with disposable income are paying cash for Poly, GF or Contemporary with no regard for 11 month booking windows, point management, cumbersome cancellation policies, lack of concierge access, etc.

DVC owners tend to be more frugal...looking for ways to expand their access to WDW without significantly increasing the budget. DVC is a vehicle for spending more nights in deluxe rooms while reducing ticket costs (AP discount) and meal budgets (in-room dining.)

There's no question that DVC is important to Disney. The up-front purchase dollars are significant...and they allow Disney to either invest the proceeds from a cash purchase or finance buyers at appealing rates. It's a guaranteed stream of business in both good times and bad...a stream of business Disney doesn't have to constantly work to earn.

Still, overall spending on a per guest / per day basis is not close to what non-members spend throughout property.

For every DVC'r that's eating 3 meals a day in their kitchen, many more are not.

Flip that around: For every DVC member eating 3 meals per day in Disney restaurants, many more are not.

 

[clsteve]

Disney does not pay expenses on the DVC villas...but they also do not earn steady revenues from them either.

The margins are pretty easy to track due to the existence of DVC dues. A BoardWalk Preferred View Studio costs 107 points for a week in October. With dues of $6.01 per point, the operating cost of that room is $643 for the week. That includes all resort expenses, insurance, property taxes, long-term maintenance, bus & boat transportation, etc.

Meanwhile even if we assume 30% discounting on the rack rate of $448, WDW sees revenues of $2195 per week vs. expenses of $643.

Over 50 years, that cash hotel room is far more profitable than the one-time DVC sale of 107 points.

Meanwhile, I have to disagree with pretty much everything else that you said. Disney often speaks in terms of this magical figure called "Average Guest Spending." Every insider I've spoken with that would have some knowledge of the situation claims that DVC owners trend very close to the bottom of that figure.

Simply put, it's the occasional guests who are buying park tickets trip-by-trip, buying dining plans or otherwise eating most meals in Disney restaurants and gobbling up souvenirs, photo passes and other trip remembrances.

This past March I was part of a group of 8 who spent eight nights at Old Key West. We ate exactly 6 restaurant meals over that stay and our souvenir purchases were virtually nonexistent. My own family of 4 used a couple theme park days and a couple waterpark visits from non-expiring tickets that will last for years.

Nah. The people with disposable income are paying cash for Poly, GF or Contemporary with no regard for 11 month booking windows, point management, cumbersome cancellation policies, lack of concierge access, etc.

DVC owners tend to be more frugal...looking for ways to expand their access to WDW without significantly increasing the budget. DVC is a vehicle for spending more nights in deluxe rooms while reducing ticket costs (AP discount) and meal budgets (in-room dining.)

There's no question that DVC is important to Disney. The up-front purchase dollars are significant...and they allow Disney to either invest the proceeds from a cash purchase or finance buyers at appealing rates. It's a guaranteed stream of business in both good times and bad...a stream of business Disney doesn't have to constantly work to earn.

Still, overall spending on a per guest / per day basis is not close to what non-members spend throughout property.

Flip that around: For every DVC member eating 3 meals per day in Disney restaurants, many more are not.

Too many things you are assuming in your scenario:

Occupancy rate - Deluxe is nowhere near close to 100% and is volatile

A similar expense line - not so

A 1 to 1 number of spend days (ex. a 3 night stay has a maximum of 2 but closer to 1.5 spend days in a trip, a 7 night has 6, closer to 5.5)

That a short stay has the same spend priorities and [patterns as a longer stay. From Disney's perspective, go ahead and cook your meals, we're doing alright with the restaurants - just clean up after yourself since we won't and spend those savings on $15 margaritas at La Cava, or go see La Nouba. Your spend pattern is different and doesn't show up in the avg per guest spend your insiders are pointing out.

Most importantly none of us can assume that our behavior is the same or our spend patterns are the norm. Yours is taking into account the die-hard DVC'rs you know or who are on these boards. It is not taking into account the large number who can tire of their DVC purchase very quickly and sell their points to guests (or brokers who do) who are now the best Disney customer Disney could want- very low cost but also potentially very high spend.