A Pause on DVC

[chalee94]

...AND some sort of bungalow on the water there as well.

ahhh, the teepee rumors. put my money down on the "not gonna happen" side...

 

[court9008]

Correct me if I'm wrong but your assertion seems to be that if Disney weren't spending money to build DVC resorts, they would spend the money on other resort projects.

That simply isn't true.

Disney's hotel occupancy typically hovers around 80%. They're already overbuilt with respect to demand, with thousands of empty rooms most nights. In recent years they have invested quite a bit in updating many of the older properties, bringing themed rooms to the moderates and suites to some values. They may invest in other resort amenities if there's a good business reason but I wouldn't look for any new hotel rooms to be constructed on the horizon.

DVC is still a money maker. On some recent projects, construction costs have been less than 20% of what they charge for the points. Sales and marketing expenses, management and other business costs also eat up a big chunk, but it's still a VERY profitable enterprise. And it helps funnel repeat business into the theme parks, restaurants, gift shops and all other areas of WDW.

No, I don't believe they will stop spending money on DVC. I've simply noticed that there has been a lot of work on the resorts lately. The majority of the work has been on DVC expansions. I simply was wanting to hear other thoughts on the direction of DVC projects after the completion of Poly. Will another DVC project be announced? If so, where? Will there be a pause on expansions after Poly? These are just some of the questions that I was wondering about.

 

[Minniesgal]

I don't see them stopping building and selling DVC it is too much of a money maker for them.

I don't see how a moderate Dvc could work with the current set up.

 

[CMNJ]

I agree I think there would be a bit of a mutiny if Disney added moderate resorts to DVC club. I would suspect many current DVC owners would be very disgruntled if they bought DVC on the premise of always staying at a deluxe property only to find out that if they don't use their home resort advantage to book that they may only be able to use their points at a moderate resort once the 7 month window has opened. Don't get me wrong, I liked Port Orleans when I've stayed there (both sides) but I would be very disappointed if my only option was to book there at 7 months versus BLT or VWL. We bought DVC because we like the deluxe resorts (esp. those with close proximity to the parks). But we all know Disney will do what makes them money and our club documents clearly state Disney can choose to add or delete resorts from the club at any time. That's why we bought at a resort we'd be happy staying at long term. That way if they change the rules for booking the other resorts we will still be happy being "stuck" at BWV

My other thought about a moderate DVC is would Disney be able to sell it at a high enough price for their effort. I assume people buying in would look at the cost of staying there vs the cost of a hotel room there-since moderates are so much cheaper than the deluxes the cost of DVC (both price per point and point requirements per night) there would have to be so much lower too to realize any cost savings with DVC.

 

[zavandor]

I agree I think there would be a bit of a mutiny if Disney added moderate resorts to DVC club.

It would depend on how they'd do it. Considering how popular the "cheap" options are (like AKV values, BWV standard, OKW Grand Villas, THV before the point reallocation), having a point saving option would be very popular. What about a GV at a moderate for a bit less points per night than a GV at OKW?
However I don't see how asking $165 pp could work at a moderate and they couldn't ask less if the resort is part of the same system.

I think they will go back to previous resorts and add more DVC. If the Poly DVC proves popular (and it looks like it is), they might go back to the first project of adding more longhouses, a lazy river and a new pool. It would create more amenities at the resort for all guests and have DVC pay for the expansion. The same could be true at many more resorts. In the meantime, if they run out of points to sell, between big projects they will convert hotel rooms to DVC.

 

[lodge]

ahhh, the teepee rumors. put my money down on the "not gonna happen" side...

Have you seen the large teepees at the Fort around Thansgiving. It is an incredible set up and great vibe. Imaging a Disney Yurt!

 

[gdrj]

I think DVC should build another resort somewhere else in the United States. Give its members more options.

The greatest demand and sell-ability is onsite at WDW plus I would imagine the lowest marketing costs would be for onsite since infrastructure is there.

 

[WDWOswald]

The greatest demand and sell-ability is onsite at WDW plus I would imagine the lowest marketing costs would be for onsite since infrastructure is there.

I'm not interested in what is easy for WDW, i'm interested in what is best for DVC owners. If DVC came to new york city, trust me there would be plenty of demand.

 

[gdrj]

[QUOTE="WDWOswald, post: 53216345, member: 467669"]I'm not interested in what is easy for WDW, I'm interested in what is best for DVC owners. If DVC came to New York City, trust me there would be plenty of demand.[/QUOTE]
And there is your answer. Any timeshare DVC, Marriott etc are in business to make money. If DVC knows that they can continue to sell units on property (where Disney owns the property) and has roadways, no planning boards or local politics holding up or delaying construction, why would you build elsewhere? It is the path of least resistance. Disney had planned a resort (I believe DVC may have been part of the plan) to build at National Harbor in the DC area, they pulled out. I don't disagree that there is a market for off site but I think Disney's DVC attraction is on-site. You have RCI options for off-site plus there a more affordable timeshare options throughout the country. Right now Disney has no competition. If you want a timeshare on Property it is the only game in town. You buy off site times shares for a nickel (an exaggeration).

You also mention "I'm interested in what is best for DVC owners" If you are a current owner at a Resort that is where DVC's interest in what is best for you stops. I own at BWV, I now can take advantage of Poly and AK, GF as well as other DVC locations that were not part of purchase, they did NOT build those for my enjoyment. Any timeshare company is interested in growth with new "owners", I doubt (nor would I expect) that when planning a new location existing "owners" in other DVC Resorts interests are part of the calculation.

 

[WDWOswald]

[QUOTE="WDWOswald, post: 53216345, member: 467669"]I'm not interested in what is easy for WDW, I'm interested in what is best for DVC owners. If DVC came to New York City, trust me there would be plenty of demand.

And there is your answer. Any timeshare DVC, Marriott etc are in business to make money. If DVC knows that they can continue to sell units on property (where Disney owns the property) and has roadways, no planning boards or local politics holding up or delaying construction, why would you build elsewhere? It is the path of least resistance. Disney had planned a resort (I believe DVC may have been part of the plan) to build at National Harbor in the DC area, they pulled out. I don't disagree that there is a market for off site but I think Disney's DVC attraction is on-site. You have RCI options for off-site plus there a more affordable timeshare options throughout the country. Right now Disney has no competition. If you want a timeshare on Property it is the only game in town. You buy off site times shares for a nickel (an exaggeration).

You also mention "I'm interested in what is best for DVC owners" If you are a current owner at a Resort that is where DVC's interest in what is best for you stops. I own at BWV, I now can take advantage of Poly and AK, GF as well as other DVC locations that were not part of purchase, they did NOT build those for my enjoyment. Any timeshare company is interested in growth with new "owners", I doubt (nor would I expect) that when planning a new location existing "owners" in other DVC Resorts interests are part of the calculation.[/QUOTE]

I'm not an owner... but I think having Aulani, Hilton Head Island, the Grand Californian, and Vero Beach is very appealing to owners and prospective buyers. I think people resist buying DVC because they tire of going to WDW and want more options. They also know that they'd rather get more value for their money than staying at saratoga springs when they would be just as happy at a moderate resort sometimes.

 

[tjkraz]

I'm not an owner... but I think having Aulani, Hilton Head Island, the Grand Californian, and Vero Beach is very appealing to owners and prospective buyers. I think people resist buying DVC because they tire of going to WDW and want more options.

Problem is when you build a non-park destination, you need to find buyers for the non-park destination. I agree that DVC is full of owners (and prospective owners) who like the IDEA of those locations being part of the package. But finding buyers who want to own those locations has proven much more difficult.

In recent years, DVC has aggressively pushed the RCI trade destinations and expanded the Buena Vista Trading Company to offer more variety. I'd expect that to continue.

 

[WDWOswald]

Problem is when you build a non-park destination, you need to find buyers for the non-park destination. I agree that DVC is full of owners (and prospective owners) who like the IDEA of those locations being part of the package. But finding buyers who want to own those locations has proven much more difficult.

In recent years, DVC has aggressively pushed the RCI trade destinations and expanded the Buena Vista Trading Company to offer more variety. I'd expect that to continue.

I wish consumers were more savvy and resistant to DVC marketing. They keep building them because it is extremely lucrative for Disney. Like Vegas and casinos. The house always wins big.

 

[dizfan]

I don't see how a moderate Dvc could work with the current set up.

for the CBR area, it would not be a moderate DVC. Instead, it would be a tear down and build something new. Rumors I have heard would be more like a high rise.
Additionally, they build water and walking access to Epcot gateway near China, it is similar to how they did BW, BC/YC, Swan, and Dolphin.
The DVC in the area would be its own resort, so CBR guests likely would not have access to the pool.

Considering what BCV resales with 27 years remaining sell for, DVD would be very wise to build more DVC options with walking access to the World Showcase.

 

[Minniesgal]

for the CBR area, it would not be a moderate DVC. Instead, it would be a tear down and build something new. Rumors I have heard would be more like a high rise.
Additionally, they build water and walking access to Epcot gateway near China, it is similar to how they did BW, BC/YC, Swan, and Dolphin.
The DVC in the area would be its own resort, so CBR guests likely would not have access to the pool.

Considering what BCV resales with 27 years remaining sell for, DVD would be very wise to build more DVC options with walking access to the World Showcase.

do you mean building a whole set of Deluxe type services in then as well (Separate reception, new pools, Signature restaurants, room service, valet parking, etc) cos that is a whole different idea to building a new wing at a moderate.

 

[tjkraz]

I wish consumers were more savvy and resistant to DVC marketing. They keep building them because it is extremely lucrative for Disney. Like Vegas and casinos. The house always wins big.

Vegas is a poor analogy. Disney "winning" and consumers "winning" are not mutually exclusive.

Twelve years ago--when our kids were toddlers--we made the informed decision to make annual treks to the Disney parks for many years to come. We've long since broken even on our purchase and saved thousands of dollars. And thanks to a strong resale market for DVC points, we could sell our points tomorrow and proceeds would be nearly equal to what we paid a decade ago.

Sure Disney "won" because they kept us coming back to the parks. But that was likely to happen either way.

100+ nights in Disney One and Two Bedroom villas for little more than the cost of the annual dues is a pretty big "win" for us.

 

[starwart]

.. I would like to see attention towards other areas such as the values and mod resorts. It seems that many people have expressed interest in having this area expanded. Any thoughts?

In my opinion i consider SSR as a moderate resort. I hope Disney won't build another one like this.

 

[dizfan]

do you mean building a whole set of Deluxe type services in then as well (Separate reception, new pools, Signature restaurants, room service, valet parking, etc) cos that is a whole different idea to building a new wing at a moderate.

My understanding of the rumor calls for a completely separate resort (separate reception, new pool/s, ...), not part of CBR.

If they did not build the canal and walking access, then I would be worried. As long as that continues to be part of the plan, Disney is certainly looking at a BWV/BCV type situation where they know they can sell this for the going rate at the time. If the schedule stays the same as Tikiman has reported, by the time they build this, BWV/BCV will have less than 20 years remaining.

 

[chalee94]

I wish consumers were more savvy and resistant to DVC marketing. They keep building them because it is extremely lucrative for Disney. Like Vegas and casinos. The house always wins big.

hotels are more lucrative overall.

income from timeshares is probably more stable.

the house is always going to "win" if you go to wdw and stay onsite. DVC is simply a better deal for those who already want to go on a regular basis.

 

[Brian Noble]

hotels are more lucrative overall.

income from timeshares is probably more stable.

The second point is absolutely true. I'm not so sure about the first. We'd need to know the year-over-year marketing costs of the hotels vs. the one-time marketing costs of DVC. It might be the case that timeshares are more profitable *and* more stable.

 

[gdrj]

I'm not an owner... but I think having Aulani, Hilton Head Island, the Grand Californian, and Vero Beach is very appealing to owners and prospective buyers. I think people resist buying DVC because they tire of going to WDW and want more options. They also know that they'd rather get more value for their money than staying at saratoga springs when they would be just as happy at a moderate resort sometimes.

Problem is when you build a non-park destination, you need to find buyers for the non-park destination. I agree that DVC is full of owners (and prospective owners) who like the IDEA of those locations being part of the package. But finding buyers who want to own those locations has proven much more difficult. STRONGLY AGREE

In recent years, DVC has aggressively pushed the RCI trade destinations and expanded the Buena Vista Trading Company to offer more variety. I'd expect that to continue.

I wish consumers were more savvy and resistant to DVC marketing. They keep building them because it is extremely lucrative for Disney. Like Vegas and casinos. The house always wins big.

OK not sure what you are looking for. You want Disney to build off site, because we are not savvy enough to resist DVC Marketing. You say they keep building them because it is extremely lucrative for Disney. Seems to me, that people that are buying them must as a whole must like the arrangement since existing owners continue to buy 2nd or 3rd contracts, plus Disney keeps building and NEW owners are not savvy enough to say no. (If it was not profitable for Disney they wouldn't build OR if it was more profitable to build off site they would)

I get it you want offsite locations, that's great. Just because you want, or even many others, based on your research will want timeshares elsewhere in the country doesn't mean Disney should or will build them. I am far from an expert but, I would think that Disney would have a hard time maintaining the selling price that they are able to get on site. It is hard for Disney to compete against itself and be offsite. I can buy a week at Vistana for $4000 resale based on 1 quick google search. With a 27,000 acre resort that DVC owners have access to, most people who have interest in DVC do so with the thought of vacationing at WDW. The marketing that consumers can't resist has also helped maintain the value of the timeshares. I could sell my BWV points for more than I paid for it and that is after 15 years of vacations, try doing that with a number of other timeshare companies. If I want a ski resort or Island resort I can use RCI or if that is my primary vacation spot I would choose a Timeshare that is located there, probably at a lower cost. If you want to vacation in Orlando but want other options buy Hilton or Marriott. Will Disney truly go heavy offsite, I have no idea.

I have gone to different timeshare presentations from other companies, when I want to be done with it I just let them know I use my DVC membership every year on site. We don't go offsite, I take DME from airport to the resort and have my bags show up in my room. When they can offer me the same with certainty of room availability on site I will be happy to review their options.

If the way DVC markets their product and decides where to build doesn't suit your needs, then a DVC purchase would not make sense for you. Everyone purchases or doesn't purchase for different reasons. Some based on analytic's, others on emotion, as well as reasons that are just important to them.