$8.40+$4.11=$12.51

[Dean]

Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
Well, I don't know that the above can be classified as factual information, I understand that it expresses your viewpoint.

My perception from the management books I read about Disney practices is they understand how so called "altruistic" reasons like a family approach help drive Disney's ability to "make money".

I also think it is probably that those who regularly rent out thier points are projecting a large bias into this discussion to help rationalize why they can continue rental practices. I see it as dentrimantal to members to take prime point holiday weeks and rent them on ebay for profit and agree when you say "I'm sure they didn't intend on any major renting or resale options...". That is not the intent of DVC sales or ownership, and an abuse of the system as designed, regardless if people get away with it or not.

We also seem to witness a "hit and run" approach with this topic, where it is posted regularly or resurected regularly by a couple of posters in an effort to price hike or set rental prices. Those practices do not seem like an appropriate use of this forum.

And that is your opinion as well, to which you are entitled. There's no doubt there are those with an agenda. There are a couple trying to secure an increased pirce but there are far more trying to convince people that renting is wrong or against the rules. My agenda is being intellectually honest which neither group I mentioned above seems to be able to do.

 

[CaptainMidnight]

Originally posted by Dean
My agenda is being intellectually honest which neither group I mentioned above seems to be able to do.

I'm afraid this can be interpreted as kind of back handed name calling, claiming others are not being honest and you are suppose to be the only one who is being honest, and it's not appreciated, nor is it accurate. As much as I respect your posts, they are not necessarily free of an agenda to the point of being "intellectually honest" above and beyond other posts in my humble view.

And, agreed, it is an opinion. That is why I clearly labeled it as "My perception..." & "I see it..." etc.

And just for clarification, I don't see occassional renting as wrong. My opinion also is that members have every right to express concern about detrimental "renting as a business" practices.

I guess there is such a thing as "an opinion" and "an informed opinion." Have many people in this thread read several books about Disney management practices they are referencing in order to make some of the assertions being made about thier motives/practices? I'd be interested in which books these views are based on if these are being presented as "informed opinions".

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
I'm afraid this can be interpreted as kind of back handed name calling, claiming others are not being honest and you are suppose to be the only one who is being honest, and it's not appreciated, nor is it accurate. As much as I respect your posts, they are not necessarily free of an agenda to the point of being "intellectually honest" above and beyond other posts in my humble view.

And, agreed, it is an opinion. That is why I clearly labeled it as "My perception..." & "I see it..." etc.

And just for clarification, I don't see occassional renting as wrong. My opinion also is that members have every right to express concern about detrimental "renting as a business" practices.

I guess there is such a thing as "an opinion" and "an informed opinion." Have many people in this thread read several books about Disney management practices they are referencing in order to make some of the assertions being made about thier motives/practices? I'd be interested in which books these views are based on if these are being presented as "informed opinions".

First, I am not calling anyone dishonest other than in some cases with themselves. I do think there are those with an agenda and their goal is to further that agenda rather than discuss the issues from a neutral standpoint on all the available information. As for reading Disney management books, that is certainly not necessary to discern that Disney is in the timeshare business to make money, this is their primary goal and it's impossible to project otherwise. Obviously Disney in general is in the money making business for the long haul. That means keeping as many people as happy as possible and doing things "the right way" whenever feasible. As for the intent of DVD in regards to the competitive disadvantage in renting, one only has to understand the practices and history of timesharing in general to understand the intent of the POS wording.

Anything any of us says is our own opinion unless specified otherwise and documented, it should not be necessary to specify that continuously.

What it fact is that DVC members are allowed to rent their points, period. They are allowed to charge ever how much they can get. The opinion part comes in as to what is "fair", "reasonable" and whether it truly hurts other members above and beyond what would happen with just the simple use of the points by the owner.

 

[CaptainMidnight]

Originally posted by Dean
.... As for reading Disney management books, that is certainly not necessary to discern that Disney is in the timeshare business to make money, this is their primary goal and it's impossible to project otherwise....

Hence the difference from a casual observation and highly subjective opinions and an informed, researched analysis based on study of Disney management philosophy. If others are interested, some worthwhile reading on Disney management approaches can be found through:

- The Disney Way by Bill Capodagli, Lynn Jackson
- The Disney Way Fieldbook by Bill Capodagli, Lynn Jackson today!
- Inside the Magic Kingdom: Seven Keys to Disney's Success by Thomas K. Connellan, Tom Connellan (
- Be Our Guesterfecting Art of Customer Service: Disney Institute Leadership by The Disney Institute (Author), Michael D. Eisner

as well as the broader resource:

The Service Profit Chain: How Leading Companies Link Profit and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction, and Value by James L. Heskett, et al.

as well as attending Disney Leadership Institute seminars. It's not just ruthless, puposeless, profiteering with a goal to make money, it's the methodology, values and approach to achieve long lasting customer loyalty which results in achieving profit. Only to make money doesn't get at it or result in the customer loyalty Disney is achieving.

 

[KNWVIKING]

.... but what on earth brought this old thread back to life ?

Usually when "rental" threads have been non-existant for awhile, Nuthut will throw out some price per point propoganda just to stir the pot a little. Guess he can save his next thread for a future date.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
It's not just ruthless, puposeless, profiteering with a goal to make money, it's the methodology, values and approach to achieve long lasting customer loyalty which results in achieving profit. Only to make money doesn't get at it or result in the customer loyalty Disney is achieving.

I believe we said the same thing. They are in this to make a profit but do it the right way. No one said it was cut throat, scamming, etc. Well, maybe Rich when he's talking about the timeshare salespeople.

 

[joepoe]

Originally posted by Richyams
Nuthut has a business renting points. He often rents out prime hioliday time and other Sun-Fri ressies on Ebay. He comes on here once in a while trying to rabble rouse for people to ask more money for their rentels.

Six or eight dollars a points is more than fair.

You would not be able to get a cash ressie at a DVC for that low. No way. No how. If you want to give your points away, that is up to you.

 

[ILPHIL]

I find it interesting that if DVC owners discuss what would be a fair price for point rental it's called collusion...when Disney acts to artificially prop up prices it's called ROFR.

I'm no lawyer, but it just seems strange...

 

[mom2alix]

What a heated topic!

First, let me say I'm a little disappointed in some of the rudeness displayed in several of these replies. Opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one and it is really disconcerting to see how disrespectful some people can be.

From my reading, it does seem to be clearly against the bylaws to run a business renting points (that commercial clause), although Disney has also clearly left the ability for individual owners to rent their points when they can't use them open. It seems like some DVC'ers are walking a fine line there. Not all rentals are bad, but there is a line there that might be construed as breaking the rules if you're really just treating this as a business.

I know I like the idea that I can rent out extra points if I need to (sometimes you end up with just a few that will expire before your next trip and it's nice that you don't have to just lose them.) Also, I know we'll be skipping the years I'm pregnant or have a very tiny baby (Some of you hardy souls may be up for it, but not this mama ) I would not be involved in price-fixing for renting, however, I would certainy look at what the market rates were before renting and since I would only have a few points I'd be looking for another member who needed just a few to round out their reservation.

The Sun-Thu debate eludes me I must admit. It seems that if DVC did decide to reallocate the points that would be to the detriment of those who currently do the Su-Th ressies and would likely not affect those who book full weeks as the pints would be equally distributed. Those who book weekends would actually benefit. Am I missing something here?

Being in the midwest I can tell you that we are likely to do a Su-Th ressie if we drive simply because it take 2 days to get there and we'd leave Fri night so as to have the last Sunday of vacation week to prepare to go back to work (cry, gnash teeth, moan over how fast the week went, etc.
) Sorry if this bothers some, but part of the attraction to DVC as opposed to other timeshares is the flexibility and the fact that we don't HAVE to book full weeks. Just something to keep in mind when ranting about people coming in on Sunday.

Thanks for all the thoughts! I really enjoy reading everyone's posts on hear and I certainly learn a lot each time.

 

[dvcgirl]

Well, if Disney does change the point allocation and increase Sun-Thur points to even out the weekend occupancy, I think that there will be a huge amount of disappointed DVCers. One way that Disney kept really brisk DVC sales going in the past few years was to drop the amount of points you had to buy in your original contract. It was originally 210...am I right? Now it's only 150.

Disney did this because the price per point was escalating at an alarming rate and probably put the DVC just out of range for lots of people with that 210 number. When they dropped it to 150 the sales CMs made sure to use the "flexibility of DVC "pitch to assure those folks that 150 points would be enough. And as a consequence, the Sun-Thurs stay has become even more popular.

If they even out the points those 150 point contracts will be a lot less desireable.

 

[CarolMN]

Originally posted by dvcgirl
Well, if Disney does change the point allocation and increase Sun-Thur points to even out the weekend occupancy, I think that there will be a huge amount of disappointed DVCers. ...(snip).......If they even out the points those 150 point contracts will be a lot less desireable.

I agree! And in addition to that, it will become much more difficult to book longer trips. As the weekend points decrease, we will see an corresponding increase in the number of "long weekend trips" booked. That will make 7 night trips much, much more difficult to reserve for those who don't or can't book when the window first opens.

IMHO, evening out the points will also have an impact on the cost of the non-DVC options. CRO rents out a disproportionate number of weekend nights to the general public - and this is what pays for those non-DVC options. I think Disney knew (and still knows) exactly what it was doing when it set up those weekday/weekend differentials.

In general (note I didn't say always), most (note I didn't say all) non-DVC members prefer trips that include a weekend. If DVC members start booking more weekend nights (because they suddenly become "cheaper"), there will be less weekend nights available to non-DVC members to rent for cash. If that discourages non-DVC members from staying/booking a DVC resort, DVC will have to lower the cash price of DVC rooms to obtain enough $$ to pay for the non-DVC options.

(As an aside, I believe lower demand for rooms by general public was the major reason that points for the non-DVC options increased so much in 2002, compared to 2001. DVC had to rent out more nights to recover the cost of the non-DVC options chosen by DVC members).

I simply do not believe that there is a significant difference in occupancy of DVC resorts between weekdays and weekends. DVC members may not book as many weekends, but the general public more than makes up for that - most of them book trips that include weekends far more often than weekday only trips. Anyone who wants more reasonable point prices for the Disney, Adventurer and Conceirge Collections should not be hoping to have points reallocated. Instead, they should be hoping demand for on site rooms increases so that less discounting is required! (That will probably also increase the price per point for those who rent. More demand and limited supply has a way of doing that).

FWIW, I don't rent points, I always book at the 11 month window and I've never used my points to stay anywhere except a DVC resort. I don't much care what anyone else does with his/her points as long as he/she follows the same rules that apply to every member.

Count me in as a member who likes things pretty much the way they are. IMHO, things are working just fine.

 

[r8ingbull]

For everyone complaining about members reserving prime times and selling them on e-bay, here is a thought for you:

Call at 11 months.

Another option would be to buy the reservation you want off e-bay, then rent your points to pay for it. This seems reasonable to me. If you buy a reservation for 55 points it would cost $687.5, take 55 of your points and rent them for $687.50. I don't see how this is a problem at all. Even if you can only get $10 per point your are only talking about $137.50 to get the resy you want.

I know the last time I went to a redwings game I paid over face value to get good seats. Since I did not buy the tickets when they came out I was willing to pay someone else for their time in securing these tickets for me.

Actually now that I think about it these people are doing you a favor. They get the reservations for prime dates and hold them until later. This lets people who can't plan ahead have a chance to get them.

 

[Zurg]

Is it a full moon? I thought this thread only surfaced on full moons!


Zurg starts looking around the DIS tool shed, "Anyone seen my wooden stakes and a hammer?"

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by CarolMN
I agree! And in addition to that, it will become much more difficult to book longer trips. As the weekend points decrease, we will see an corresponding increase in the number of "long weekend trips" booked. That will make 7 night trips much, much more difficult to reserve for those who don't or can't book when the window first opens.

When, not if, DVC eventually adjusts the weekend vs weekdays points, I doubt they will make big changes. I seriously doubt they will make large enough changes to have members disproportiionately reserving weekends. The goal would be to have as close as possible demand for every day of the week. It would appear that there is a discrepancy with weekdays having a higher occupancy than weekends but it must not be that large or DVC members would be having trouble using their points and we'd be hearing about people losing points they couldn't use because there was nothing. It would basically create an oversold situation.

As for CRO and weekend vs weekday, remember that DVC must convert points to days. While it may be easier to rent the weekend days, it costs a lot more points for them, just like for us. My guess is that they would actually come out better renting weekdays during certain times of the year. Actually DVC has never said they preferentially rented weekends, that has just been assumed by members of this board from what I can tell.

I know for certain that DVC tries to hold back on reserving high demand times and last I heard they never reserve premier time using the points members have traded. Actually if they were forcing the market by structuring the points to have good rental days, they'd be in violation of the FL laws governing timeshares and would be liable under the fiduciary restrictions of the POS.

 

[CaptainMidnight]

...From my reading, it does seem to be clearly against the bylaws to run a business renting points (that commercial clause)...

That's consistent with my reading as well. It is an abuse of the DVC membership we purchased, and detrimental to members. Given that, it's certainly a legitimate topic for members to express concern over whether those who regularly rent points dissagree or not.

 

[RobDoc]

Originally posted by mom2alix
From my reading, it does seem to be clearly against the bylaws to run a business renting points (that commercial clause), although Disney has also clearly left the ability for individual owners to rent their points when they can't use them open.

I also agree, but find that the key to the discussion lies in the definition of "commercial". Since "Disney has also clearly left the ability for individual owners to rent their points when they can't use them", it does cloud how "commercial" is defined.

While we can discuss/argue the meaning here ad nauseum, the only entity that can define and enforce the issue is Disney. There is a definition, of sorts, in our documents :

From the SSR POS, page 24, Section 12.1:
... Use of the accommodations and recreational facilities of the Condominium is limited solely to the personal use of Owners, their lessees, guests, exchangers and invitees and for recreational uses by corporations and other entities owning Ownership Interests in a Unit. Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purposes other than the personal use described in this Declaration is expressly prohibited. "Commercial purpose" includes a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board, in it's reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. ... The provisions of this Section 12.1 do not apply to Commercial Units or DVD."

The Board of Directors has clearly accepted full responsibility to define "Commercial purpose" as they choose and yet have excluded DVD from the restrictions. If anyone takes issue with rental activity they deem commercial use, the Board may be the best place to direct those concerns as that is the ONLY entity with the ability to address infraction.

 

[CaptainMidnight]

Originally posted by WebmasterDoc
... From the SSR POS, page 24, Section 12.1:
... Use of the accommodations and recreational facilities of the Condominium is limited solely to the personal use of Owners, their lessees, guests, exchangers and invitees and for recreational uses by corporations and other entities owning Ownership Interests in a Unit. Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purposes other than the personal use described in this Declaration is expressly prohibited. "Commercial purpose" includes a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board, in it's reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. ... The provisions of this Section 12.1 do not apply to Commercial Units or DVD."....

Thanks Doc.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by WebmasterDoc
I also agree, but find that the key to the discussion lies in the definition of "commercial". Since "Disney has also clearly left the ability for individual owners to rent their points when they can't use them", it does cloud how "commercial" is defined.

While we can discuss/argue the meaning here ad nauseum, the only entity that can define and enforce the issue is Disney. There is a definition, of sorts, in our documents :

From the SSR POS, page 24, Section 12.1:
... Use of the accommodations and recreational facilities of the Condominium is limited solely to the personal use of Owners, their lessees, guests, exchangers and invitees and for recreational uses by corporations and other entities owning Ownership Interests in a Unit. Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purposes other than the personal use described in this Declaration is expressly prohibited. "Commercial purpose" includes a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board, in it's reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. ... The provisions of this Section 12.1 do not apply to Commercial Units or DVD."

The Board of Directors has clearly accepted full responsibility to define "Commercial purpose" as they choose and yet have excluded DVD from the restrictions. If anyone takes issue with rental activity they deem commercial use, the Board may be the best place to direct those concerns as that is the ONLY entity with the ability to address infraction.

Doc, since the POS has extensive definitions in most areas, I can only assume that this area was skirted intentionally. If it ever becomes an issue I suspect the courts and not the BOD will be the final authority. In these matters, the courts routinely side with the individual against the company. Besides there is major legal precedent (no I'm not a lawyer) that says that the individual can rent what they own. Condo's and the like have only been able to stop or restrict rentals as long as it's not something they do themselves. To cut down on transients, some have restricted short term rentals, saying than any rental must be longer than X stay, usually a month or more, but these rules apply to all. To do this Disney would have to stop all rentals at DVC resorts which we all know will never happen.

Since there are multiple passages that state an owner can rent and taking into account the above thinking, hence my assertion that only the most egregious examples would create a problem under this wording. In my thinking this would be a true business rather than a casual renter. I don’t think one individual would accumulate enough points to hit that level but I guess that could be up for discussion. I can’t see anything short of an office with a sign out front triggering this clause. While Disney could certainly be the proverbial #600 Gorilla if they chose, I doubt they would worry about it or invite any negative criticism placing them in the light of many timeshare sales companies or risking the limelight in Tallahassee. Unfortunately many decide what they wish were true then try to justify it. What’s fair, reasonable, just, right, etc is a totally separate discussion from whether rentals are allowed or not. What Disney could do is an end run using copyright laws and the like pertaining to logo’s, etc though that’d be pretty weak and still be hard for Disney to defend in all but the most extreme of circumstances.

 

[RobDoc]

Originally posted by Dean
Doc, since the POS has extensive definitions in most areas, I can only assume that this area was skirted intentionally. If it ever becomes an issue I suspect the courts and not the BOD will be the final authority.

My point was that unless/until DVC chooses to go after someone for renting, the definition they have offered is intentionally pretty vague. I would agree that a court will ultimately be the deciding factor in that definition.

My personal opinion is that, unless/until someone opens a business called Disney Vacation Club Rentals-R-Us, DVC has no intention or need to address the issue. The remainder of the current definition would address someone trying to operate a beauty salon from their balcony at BWV or operating a medical clinic from their 2BR at OKW.

Without some action from DVC, no court will make any decision about what constitutes "Commercial Purpose" and I find the likelyhood remote for DVC to take that action. The language is there to open that door if something blatant is tried, but otherwise it is not applicable.

My .02

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by WebmasterDoc
My point was that unless/until DVC chooses to go after someone for renting, the definition they have offered is intentionally pretty vague. I would agree that a court will ultimately be the deciding factor in that definition.

My personal opinion is that, unless/until someone opens a business called Disney Vacation Club Rentals-R-Us, DVC has no intention or need to address the issue. The remainder of the current definition would address someone trying to operate a beauty salon from their balcony at BWV or operating a medical clinic from their 2BR at OKW.

Without some action from DVC, no court will make any decision about what constitutes "Commercial Purpose" and I find the likelyhood remote for DVC to take that action. The language is there to open that door if something blatant is tried, but otherwise it is not applicable.

My .02

I agree, we see this issue in the same light.