DVC resale changes coming!?!

[bighoo93]

Originally Posted by zavandor

But what if they say that GFV is in a different club than the others? They would let existing direct DVC member to use points to book it like they do with Disney collection, while resales would not have the same option.

At the same time they would let direct GFV to book other resorts outside the "GFV DVC" as a perk, not available to who will buy GFV resale in the future.

Existing members will not be able to complain, because we purchased before GFV being sold so we were never been promised to be able to book there. But as more resorts will be added with this restriction, resales will be more and more limited.

I only hope they grandfather existing contracts like they did.

This is almost exactly what I was going to post (the only thing I'd quibble about is how to handle GF resale points).

The best way I can think of that Disney could pull this off is if they say that GF and subsequent resorts can only be reserved with points from direct contracts. This takes nothing away from existing owners of any kind, direct or resale. Those of us who bought resale get exactly what we bought at the time, and anyone who wants to sell their points is selling the same thing that resale sells now: the right to use your points at any of the resorts built up through Aulani. But it does add value to those who purchased direct: they can use their points at all the resorts, including the newest ones. This is smart business thinking. Adding value to direct points is the way to approach this, not devaluing resale points. You don't kick your existing loyal customers in the teeth. I own resale points, and even I would endorse the plan if this is what they are talking about. And it would give me more confidence in Disney management than if they did the stupid business move of stripping significant value from their existing customers.

It doesn't take long reading these boards to realize that a fair number of people who have purchased direct or purchased more expensive home resort points deeply resent what they view as lesser folk and assorted riff raff who bought resale points at less expensive resorts can stay at their resort despite paying less. I can ignore that. But that shouldn't be something that drives Disney to screw over people who bought resale already (and frankly, everyone, because selling your points WILL be devalued).

[nunzia]

If I recall correctly it seems like alot of this same discussion..the part about a resort belonging to a different 'club' like a Deluxe branch of DVC was around before Aulani came out. I would not be surprised at any future restrictions on resale and it wouldn't bother me..Disney is a business and has a responsibility to use its assets wisely to generate income. I don't even know if they HAVE to grandfather in previous resales legally or if that is just a goodwill measure. It seems to me..after I slogged through my first contract as best I could..that is is written strongly in Disney's favor. I have always purchased direct since my resort is not that easy to get into regularly at 7 months and is the only one at DLR so not much chance to stay other places without high points at DLH and PP and even those places are restricted with resale points, and resale points are hard to find (so are direct points as I have been on Disney's list for 7 months for another add on)
I don't resent any 'riff-raff' who bought cheap resale points and then stay at VGC that I paid full price for..why should I? a point is a point and if they are lucky enough to get in at 7 months, or lucky enough to find resale VGC points and book at 11 months then good for them. I don't see DVC as having 'classes'...it's just a timeshare for heaven's sake.

[joeyrose]

only reinforces "buy where you want to stay"...probably at cheaper prices if this goes through. but, "about to make changes" by a sales rep should be taken way a grain (box?) of salt.

[bighoo93]

Originally Posted by Lil' Grumpy

the current playing field has been out of balance
for us since we joined. like ssr owners, they don't need
to book @ 11mos when they are trying to move
during the 7mos.. and if their points go into a holding
account @ ssr, no problem getting your home resort.
but if you're a blt owner, you have no chance getting
your home resort. blt points are not the same as
ssr points. clearly blt owners are @ a disadvantage. so the
only question about "grandfathering" current resales depend
on if they are legally bound which they are not.
disney cares about their image, but the trend lately
are those taking advantage of disney instead of the
other way around. ( my observation was based on
how many posts about buying @ the lowest costs,
no matter what)

So much to dig into here. The "playing field" is not out of whack. People who own at BLT have a privilege that those who own SSR do not, which is to reserve the most desirable rooms year round at BLT. Things like what happens to your points in holding is a result of the popularity of BLT, which is why owners bought BLT in the first place. That's it. It isn't some built-in advantage for SSR owners.

And one of the main arguments AGAINST stripping rights from existing owners is because Disney cares about their image. I recognize that many, perhaps most people tend to take an immediate, short-term, narrow view of a decision and not think about reactions and consequences. Like how raising taxes doesn't generate as much revenue as projected because people find ways to shelter more income. Disney screwing over their customers in order to satisfy a subset who resent what they see as freeloaders and lowlifes who don't own what they see as the exclusive and upscale resort points (like the almighty BLT) does not help their image. And I don't just mean Disney, I mean any customer-oriented business. It takes years, decades and in Disney's case, generations to build the brand value and image that you have. It doesn't take nearly so long to destroy it (which is why Coca-Cola responded frantically to the backlash against New Coke in the mid-80s). Stripping value from existing customers is simply myopic. If they want to segment their customers, and I can understand why they might, they ought to be adding value to some, not taking it away from others.

And finally, the idea that people who own at the ghetto resorts (as some BLT owners view them) are "taking advantage of Disney" is absurd. They are not exploiting loopholes or using their points in ways that were not intended by the program in the first place. Owning particular home resort points confers certain advantages, and people ought to evaluate those before purchasing. If some later regret their decision and believe they overpaid, Disney shouldn't exact retribution on their behalf so they can feel better.

[bighoo93]

Originally Posted by nunzia

If I recall correctly it seems like alot of this same discussion..the part about a resort belonging to a different 'club' like a Deluxe branch of DVC was around before Aulani came out. I would not be surprised at any future restrictions on resale and it wouldn't bother me..Disney is a business and has a responsibility to use its assets wisely to generate income.

What I am disputing here is whether this would constitute using their assets "wisely." It seems to me that some are taking a very near-term view without considering the consequences. I don't think what is being suggested here (i.e., stripping resale points of the ability to book at non-home resorts) is at all a wise move from a business perspective. It seems to either be very short term (i.e., hey, Disney can make people give them more money) or simply resentful (i.e., I purchased direct at BLT and it isn't fair that others bought SSR resale for half price and can still stay in the same resorts).

Smart business thinking would be ADDING value to direct points. It makes the company look like they are trying to find ways to provide more value to their customers. STRIPPING value is not smart business thinking. It looks like you are trying to extract more money from people to get the same thing without adding any value.

[bighoo93]

Originally Posted by joeyrose

only reinforces "buy where you want to stay"...probably at cheaper prices if this goes through. but, "about to make changes" by a sales rep should be taken way a grain (box?) of salt.

And if you want to stay at different resorts? Then either pay double the price or screw you. I don't want to be stuck staying at the same resort every time, I want to try different places. Believe it or not, that is kind of a big DVC selling point. They don't spend the whole sales presentation trying to get you to identify what resort you want to stay at, like a car salesperson tries to get you to pick your specific make, model and color.

DVC may have the legal right to do this, I'm not questioning that at all. But it is a customer-hostile move, if this is the way they decide to go.

[bighoo93]

Originally Posted by disneynutz

Anything is possible and nothing would surprise me. Disney looks out for Disney and as I have posted before, several sources at Disney have told me that to them, people who buy resale are taking food off of their table.

Bill

What is the position of these people within Disney? If they are among the key decision-makers at the company, I would be concerned (I mean about the management of the company, not about whether this is going to happen).

Do homebuilders think that the people they built for are "taking food off their table" because they don't pay rent to the homebuilder to stay there every month, and the homebuilder doesn't get in on any resale of the home? Nonsensical. Selling is a different model than renting. Accepting payment up front for a sale and then bemoaning the fact that you don't get a cut on rental or subsequent resale is kind of strange. When you make the decision as a business to go into timeshare rather than just develop more cash reservation resorts, you are purposely choosing a different model. It isn't like they are a victim of circumstances.

[CarolMN]

Originally Posted by bighoo93

....(snip)......Do homebuilders think that the people they built for are "taking food off their table" because they don't pay rent to the homebuilder to stay there every month, and the homebuilder doesn't get in on any resale of the home? Nonsensical. Selling is a different model than renting. Accepting payment up front for a sale and then bemoaning the fact that you don't get a cut on rental or subsequent resale is kind of strange. When you make the decision as a business to go into timeshare rather than just develop more cash reservation resorts, you are purposely choosing a different model. It isn't like they are a victim of circumstances.

The homebuilder analogy isn't a good one in this case and I think you may have missed Bill's point.

There is very little difference in the use of points purchased resale vs direct. Many of the DVC sales people believe that buyers are choosing to go the resale route instead of direct. They believe that a resale purchase "robs" them of their sale and thus their commissions/paychecks are less. We may not agree with that, but I'm quite willing to believe it's the way many of them feel.

FWIW, I believe that limiting resale buyers to their home resort would be legally difficult to implement - not impossible, but difficult and costly enough that I wonder whether or not DVD will ever do more than talk about it. It's about the money, for both the Developer and the potential buyers out there.

[KingRichard]

If DVC was worried about sales person commissions then they would buy back every point, but then they would lose a lot of yearly fees or have to rent out all those rooms/points.

One way around this resale/home resort only booking would be I rent your home resort and you rent mine.

[bighoo93]

Originally Posted by CarolMN

The homebuilder analogy isn't a good one in this case and I think you may have missed Bill's point.

There is very little difference in the use of points purchased resale vs direct. Many of the DVC sales people believe that buyers are choosing to go the resale route instead of direct. They believe that a resale purchase "robs" them of their sale and thus their commissions/paychecks are less. We may not agree with that, but I'm quite willing to believe it's the way many of them feel.

FWIW, I believe that limiting resale buyers to their home resort would be legally difficult to implement - not impossible, but difficult and costly enough that I wonder whether or not DVD will ever do more than talk about it. It's about the money, for both the Developer and the potential buyers out there.

There are multiple issues that people bring up regarding Disney not getting money. So I get his point. I have been advocating disney making direct points more valuable. There are many ways to do this. What I am saying is not smart is stripping value and privileges from resale. Making secondary benefits like using points for cruises, etc. unavailable to resale buyers was one thing, because that is not the main thing people are buying points for. But restricting use to only one particular resort would be dramatically restricting the primary purpose of the points. Smart business adds value to their offerings to entice people to buy from them. Dumb and lazy business resorts to measures that strip value to compel people to buy from them.

[TagsMissy]

Originally Posted by bighoo93

And finally, the idea that people who own at the ghetto resorts (as some BLT owners view them) are "taking advantage of Disney" is absurd. They are not exploiting loopholes or using their points in ways that were not intended by the program in the first place. Owning particular home resort points confers certain advantages, and people ought to evaluate those before purchasing. If some later regret their decision and believe they overpaid, Disney shouldn't exact retribution on their behalf so they can feel better.

I wish I knew where this 'better than thou' attitude is coming from... but there's always a few in the crowd. I am a BLT owner and am constantly trading out to other resorts to please come and stay at BLT!! I find it demeaning how particular poster(s) call out people for damaging this... disrupting that. For all we know it is the owners causing the problem not some 'lowly outsider'

If a BLT owner wants to stay at BLT book early to guarantee a room otherwise I don't see what there's to complain about. I am tired of the 'better than you' attitude.

[Missyrose]

Originally Posted by bighoo93

This is almost exactly what I was going to post (the only thing I'd quibble about is how to handle GF resale points).

The best way I can think of that Disney could pull this off is if they say that GF and subsequent resorts can only be reserved with points from direct contracts. This takes nothing away from existing owners of any kind, direct or resale. Those of us who bought resale get exactly what we bought at the time, and anyone who wants to sell their points is selling the same thing that resale sells now: the right to use your points at any of the resorts built up through Aulani. But it does add value to those who purchased direct: they can use their points at all the resorts, including the newest ones. This is smart business thinking. Adding value to direct points is the way to approach this, not devaluing resale points. You don't kick your existing loyal customers in the teeth. I own resale points, and even I would endorse the plan if this is what they are talking about. And it would give me more confidence in Disney management than if they did the stupid business move of stripping significant value from their existing customers.

It doesn't take long reading these boards to realize that a fair number of people who have purchased direct or purchased more expensive home resort points deeply resent what they view as lesser folk and assorted riff raff who bought resale points at less expensive resorts can stay at their resort despite paying less. I can ignore that. But that shouldn't be something that drives Disney to screw over people who bought resale already (and frankly, everyone, because selling your points WILL be devalued).

Originally Posted by bighoo93

So much to dig into here. The "playing field" is not out of whack. People who own at BLT have a privilege that those who own SSR do not, which is to reserve the most desirable rooms year round at BLT. Things like what happens to your points in holding is a result of the popularity of BLT, which is why owners bought BLT in the first place. That's it. It isn't some built-in advantage for SSR owners.

And one of the main arguments AGAINST stripping rights from existing owners is because Disney cares about their image. I recognize that many, perhaps most people tend to take an immediate, short-term, narrow view of a decision and not think about reactions and consequences. Like how raising taxes doesn't generate as much revenue as projected because people find ways to shelter more income. Disney screwing over their customers in order to satisfy a subset who resent what they see as freeloaders and lowlifes who don't own what they see as the exclusive and upscale resort points (like the almighty BLT) does not help their image. And I don't just mean Disney, I mean any customer-oriented business. It takes years, decades and in Disney's case, generations to build the brand value and image that you have. It doesn't take nearly so long to destroy it (which is why Coca-Cola responded frantically to the backlash against New Coke in the mid-80s). Stripping value from existing customers is simply myopic. If they want to segment their customers, and I can understand why they might, they ought to be adding value to some, not taking it away from others.

And finally, the idea that people who own at the ghetto resorts (as some BLT owners view them) are "taking advantage of Disney" is absurd. They are not exploiting loopholes or using their points in ways that were not intended by the program in the first place. Owning particular home resort points confers certain advantages, and people ought to evaluate those before purchasing. If some later regret their decision and believe they overpaid, Disney shouldn't exact retribution on their behalf so they can feel better.

Originally Posted by bighoo93

What I am disputing here is whether this would constitute using their assets "wisely." It seems to me that some are taking a very near-term view without considering the consequences. I don't think what is being suggested here (i.e., stripping resale points of the ability to book at non-home resorts) is at all a wise move from a business perspective. It seems to either be very short term (i.e., hey, Disney can make people give them more money) or simply resentful (i.e., I purchased direct at BLT and it isn't fair that others bought SSR resale for half price and can still stay in the same resorts).

Smart business thinking would be ADDING value to direct points. It makes the company look like they are trying to find ways to provide more value to their customers. STRIPPING value is not smart business thinking. It looks like you are trying to extract more money from people to get the same thing without adding any value.

Originally Posted by bighoo93

And if you want to stay at different resorts? Then either pay double the price or screw you. I don't want to be stuck staying at the same resort every time, I want to try different places. Believe it or not, that is kind of a big DVC selling point. They don't spend the whole sales presentation trying to get you to identify what resort you want to stay at, like a car salesperson tries to get you to pick your specific make, model and color.

DVC may have the legal right to do this, I'm not questioning that at all. But it is a customer-hostile move, if this is the way they decide to go.

Originally Posted by bighoo93

What is the position of these people within Disney? If they are among the key decision-makers at the company, I would be concerned (I mean about the management of the company, not about whether this is going to happen).

Do homebuilders think that the people they built for are "taking food off their table" because they don't pay rent to the homebuilder to stay there every month, and the homebuilder doesn't get in on any resale of the home? Nonsensical. Selling is a different model than renting. Accepting payment up front for a sale and then bemoaning the fact that you don't get a cut on rental or subsequent resale is kind of strange. When you make the decision as a business to go into timeshare rather than just develop more cash reservation resorts, you are purposely choosing a different model. It isn't like they are a victim of circumstances.

Originally Posted by bighoo93

There are multiple issues that people bring up regarding Disney not getting money. So I get his point. I have been advocating disney making direct points more valuable. There are many ways to do this. What I am saying is not smart is stripping value and privileges from resale. Making secondary benefits like using points for cruises, etc. unavailable to resale buyers was one thing, because that is not the main thing people are buying points for. But restricting use to only one particular resort would be dramatically restricting the primary purpose of the points. Smart business adds value to their offerings to entice people to buy from them. Dumb and lazy business resorts to measures that strip value to compel people to buy from them.

You are understandably fired up about this topic. But I believe the one point you seem to be missing is that Disney has no real incentive to come up with policies that are "fair" to resale buyers.

I am someone who is still relatively new to DVC (I bought my two contracts after the first set of resale restrictions went into place). And quite honestly, I bought my contracts at the two resorts I'd most like to stay at. So if Disney ever implements these long-rumored resale rules in which resale buyers can only stay at their home resorts, I knew I would still be happy with my contracts.

As of now, I hope to try most (if not all) of the DVC resorts at one time or another (By the end of my first year of ownership, I will have stayed at four of the resorts), but I'm happy enough with my home resorts that I would happily continue to travel to Disney if I were restricted to them.

If Disney restricts resale contracts, resale owners will have two choices: Continue to use their contracts or sell them (I guess walking away entirely is also a choice).

But no amount of stomping our feet and crying "no fair" will sway Disney away from their decision. And I'm quite certain that Disney employs a hefty legal team that would help them navigate changing the rules, so the legal challenges wouldn't be an issue.

Bottom line is that we're dealing with a whole bunch of "what ifs," and if you're that concerned about it, you could always sell your points and just rent from others when you want to take a Disney vacation.

[disneynutz]

Originally Posted by Missyrose

You are understandably fired up about this topic. But I believe the one point you seem to be missing is that Disney has no real incentive to come up with policies that are "fair" to resale buyers.

I am someone who is still relatively new to DVC (I bought my two contracts after the first set of resale restrictions went into place). And quite honestly, I bought my contracts at the two resorts I'd most like to stay at. So if Disney ever implements these long-rumored resale rules in which resale buyers can only stay at their home resorts, I knew I would still be happy with my contracts.

As of now, I hope to try most (if not all) of the DVC resorts at one time or another (By the end of my first year of ownership, I will have stayed at four of the resorts), but I'm happy enough with my home resorts that I would happily continue to travel to Disney if I were restricted to them.

If Disney restricts resale contracts, resale owners will have two choices: Continue to use their contracts or sell them (I guess walking away entirely is also a choice).

But no amount of stomping our feet and crying "no fair" will sway Disney away from their decision. And I'm quite certain that Disney employs a hefty legal team that would help them navigate changing the rules, so the legal challenges wouldn't be an issue.

Bottom line is that we're dealing with a whole bunch of "what ifs," and if you're that concerned about it, you could always sell your points and just rent from others when you want to take a Disney vacation.

The reality is that Disney's legal team worked on this and other possible changes way before now. Is it a coincidence that the Association meeting format for this years meeting was changed to not allow general questions or discussion? That the meeting no longer has any entertainment and that it was shortened? This could mean that something is going to be announced that Bilby doesn't want to discuss face to face.

All we can do is wait and see.

My recommendation still is to buy where you love to stay.

Bill

[k3chantal]

So there are 400,000 DVC members and less than 4000 of them are here on this forum. I would venture a guess that the 4000 are more involved and more knowledgable about their purchase than the general population of DVC owners.

Before I knew about Disboards, my husband and I purchased direct. It took us a year to make the decision and over that year any communication we had with DVC highlighted that one of the wonderful aspects of purchasing this timeshare was that you could use your points at the other DVC properties. I know we read the fine print and probably at the time read that this could be rescinded but it was such a strong selling point that we put the concern out of our minds.

So now I am more educated. Lovely, quite frankly it makes me love my DVC a little less thinking that I may/ could in the future be restricted where I can use my points. And I wonder about the other almost half a million less knowledgeable DVC owners and how they would react if Disney put this into effect. I would venture a guess that most of them are sleeping in their beds comfortable in the knowledge that they think they can use their points at any DVC property. Honestly, I think that they would become a very vocal majority of disappointed owners.

It's easy to say, buy where you want to stay, but contracts are thousands of dollars and maintenance fees are a yearly commitment (even my maintenance fees are over a thousand dollars). Most people can't or shouldn't just buy more points.

On the flip side, I believe that DVC would be shooting themselves in the foot. By allowing owners to stay at other resorts, those that can afford it, will know that they want to buy at those resorts. As a Californian, I would never waste a precious day exploring an 'unstayed at' resort when I could be in a park but I would risk staying at a resort for a split stay so I would know if I would like to come back for a longer stay or buy there in the future.

I agree with Bighoo93. This would be a customer hostile move.

[bwang123]

Originally Posted by bighoo93

It doesn't take long reading these boards to realize that a fair number of people who have purchased direct or purchased more expensive home resort points deeply resent what they view as lesser folk and assorted riff raff who bought resale points at less expensive resorts can stay at their resort despite paying less. I can ignore that. But that shouldn't be something that drives Disney to screw over people who bought resale already (and frankly, everyone, because selling your points WILL be devalued).

i see it more as a core group (not everyone) of the resale people on here bashing those who buy direct. i avoid the purchasing dvc forum for the most part because of this. Its one thing to kindly suggest resale as an option but to down someone for their personal decision at a direct purchase is unessesary.

i am fine with restrictions on future resale purchases and do not care how it affects the potential to sell my contract. i bought for the long run and did not get into it to recoup any money if we had any unforseen financial issues.