Addonitis - Considering Riviera Resale

[atthebeachclub]

I think your plan is very solid, Brian.

 

[Brian Noble]

My original plan was to buy another direct contract as my UY was coming to an end, using MB to cut the cost (I would not have a personal use for the current UY points). But even doing that, the resale contract was a savings of more than 40% on the purchase price for exactly the same sets of points.

 

[PolyRob]

Not crazy about LL from what we’ve seen so far so I don’t think I’ll be dying of FOMO on that one. After that, I just can’t see them building another mega resort until 2042 so if that and the cabins is all I’m blocked out of for the foreseeable future who cares? To me of all the new stuff, RIV is where you want to be.

Everyone forgets there’s a permit already filed to build a resort next to future world in Epcot that has just been sitting there for 4 years. I think that’s the next Disney World hotel, eventually.

I think we may see this come to fruition and something in the MK area with all the Floridian Way changes and MK expansion prior to 2042.

DVC needs to keep building or converting to sell points. 17 years is a long time.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

DVC needs to keep building or converting to sell points. 17 years is a long time.

This misguided mentality is unfortunately likely how DVC thinks. It’s as if the place exists to sell timeshare. As long as we “sell out” that means we should build another one, obviously lol. It’s like urban sprawl but Disney World edition.

 

[Girlstar30]

You are right it would be a resale all the way scenario. I personally think, aside from the most expensive resorts (GF, GC), the direct pricing is not competitive. They can only attempt to justify the premium by restricting resale points. The blue card benefits are nice but don’t justify the delta. I go back and forth on the 2nd contract being Aulani or Riviera.

I go back and forth about this ALL the time because I dont care for the resorts im restricted from for one reason or another more than the ones I have access to, if at all.

The LSL themeing isn't my cup of tea either. SO when would the next one I really like be coming??

I truly would only be buying direct at this point for the blue card benefits and I wonder if after I "get it out of my system" if I will feel its worth it or if this is just emotions and fomo getting the best of me.

My logical brain is telling me to wait. I dont need a direct contract to go to any resorts I want right now. But my emotional side is telling me just purchase next year since you're staying at BLT and get yourself into that top of the world lounge and your aulani 8×10

 

[Carouselofplanning]

I go back and forth about this ALL the time because I dont care for the resorts im restricted from for one reason or another more than the ones I have access to, if at all.

The LSL themeing isn't my cup of tea either. SO when would the next one I really like be coming??

I truly would only be buying direct at this point for the blue card benefits and I wonder if after I "get it out of my system" if I will feel its worth it or if this is just emotions and fomo getting the best of me.

My logical brain is telling me to wait. I dont need a direct contract to go to any resorts I want right now. But my emotional side is telling me just purchase next year since you're staying at BLT and get yourself into that top of the world lounge and your aulani 8×10

Aside from discounts (which can be offset by AP or Chase) I ask myself this way:
My family fell in love with Disney without lounges and Moonlight Magic. So how important is it? Are people in the lounge having an amazing time in there? Lol.
MMB (an annual purchase on top of direct) gives you a OTUP discount which is a nice benefit but only if you need the points.

And my brain tells me they can’t build endlessly. It makes no sense to do that. So how many new resorts are really coming down the road?

 

[Girlstar30]

Aside from discounts (which can be offset by AP or Chase) I ask myself this way:
My family fell in love with Disney without lounges and Moonlight Magic. So how important is it? Are people in the lounge having an amazing time in there? Lol.
MMB (an annual purchase on top of direct) gives you a OTUP discount which is a nice benefit but only if you need the points.

And my brain tells me they can’t build endlessly. It makes no sense to do that. So how many new resorts are really coming down the road?

And they have to be resorts we like too. I dont think we see a hotel with elaborate themeing like akv again, hopefully im wrong, unless they keep bwv in 2042, which I would want to own there.

I realize some of my FOMO is stuff I wouldnt even be able to go to even if I owned direct for example, the pumpkin Duffy halloween meet up, I wouldnt have been at WDW, direct or not.

I do use OTUP every single time. But I expect the price of this offering to be much higher after everyone gets used to paying for extras. We also wont be needing an AP next year so there goes the need for that. But then I think the extra cost isn't much more over the long run of this entire thing and if im going to cave eventually to direct, I should get the most years out of it that I can. I will keep saving and revisit the option when our year comes up. The first priority was more points.

I also cant get rid of the nagging feeling that I should sell my 160 baylake points for the equivalent of 250 more SSR points. The home resort priority is nice but I didn't even use it this year because im always changing my mind I REALLY need to stay there, what if i love it, to me it would be a no brainer.

 

[PolyRob]

This misguided mentality is unfortunately likely how DVC thinks. It’s as if the place exists to sell timeshare. As long as we “sell out” that means we should build another one, obviously lol. It’s like urban sprawl but Disney World edition.

It’s strategic for Disney to keep building new DVC resorts. The model provides a steady, lower-risk revenue stream by shifting much of the cost to members. Resort guests make up a small portion of overall WDW visitors, and Disney can rent any unsold DVC inventory for cash stays.

Given that, why wouldn’t DVC continue expanding through new builds and conversions? I could see them avoiding standalone resorts that aren’t located near a theme park, but it’s hard to imagine Disney finishing sales at RIV and the PVB IT and then deciding it's done with LSL in FL.

 

[intamin]

It’s strategic for Disney to keep building new DVC resorts. The model provides a steady, lower-risk revenue stream by shifting much of the cost to members. Resort guests make up a small portion of overall WDW visitors, and Disney can rent any unsold DVC inventory for cash stays.

Given that, why wouldn’t DVC continue expanding through new builds and conversions? I could see them avoiding standalone resorts that aren’t located near a theme park, but it’s hard to imagine Disney finishing sales at RIV and the PVB IT and then deciding it's done with LSL in FL.

Exactly, why wouldn't they? It's like renting out your house for 50 years while someone pays you for it and then you get to keep it at the end. Then you add in all of the other stuff like spending on merch, lightning lanes, food, experiences etc and it makes it even better for Disney.

I have a hard time seeing Disney building a new value anytime soon just because why would they when they can pop up these DVC resorts all around their parks. Disney is no longer targeting the average family, they're targeting high income families with money to spend.

 

[PolyRob]

Exactly, why wouldn't they? It's like renting out your house for 50 years while someone pays you for it and then you get to keep it at the end. Then you add in all of the other stuff like spending on merch, lightning lanes, food, experiences etc and it makes it even better for Disney.

I have a hard time seeing Disney building a new value anytime soon just because why would they when they can pop up these DVC resorts all around their parks. Disney is no longer targeting the average family, they're targeting high income families with money to spend.

Yes, agreed. And while Disney may not build more values, they definitely serve a purpose. I love reading the threads here about how everyone joined DVC. So many started in values and took a tour and the rest is history. Those affordable rooms are feeder pools for more expensive resorts and experiences.

To bring this back to the main thread topic, it creates FOMO to have these new resorts popping up so Disney won't stop. Will I need to buy LSL? Probably not. Will I want to see the lobby, shops, dining, and lazy river? 100% Could I fall in love with it after using eligible points to stay there? Absolutely.

It's why having direct RIV with resale RIV (or a combo of any direct/resale restricted resort) is a good option for those that love the resort. It gives you more choices when booking over the length of your membership, but you also save some money up front.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

Yes, agreed. And while Disney may not build more values, they definitely serve a purpose. I love reading the threads here about how everyone joined DVC. So many started in values and took a tour and the rest is history. Those affordable rooms are feeder pools for more expensive resorts and experiences.

To bring this back to the main thread topic, it creates FOMO to have these new resorts popping up so Disney won't stop. Will I need to buy LSL? Probably not. Will I want to see the lobby, shops, dining, and lazy river? 100% Could I fall in love with it after using eligible points to stay there? Absolutely.

It's why having direct RIV with resale RIV (or a combo of any direct/resale restricted resort) is a good option for those that love the resort. It gives you more choices when booking over the length of your membership, but you also save some money up front.

From a resort planning perspective, the hotels exist to service park access. That’s ultimately the value. There is a point where you reach critical mass and too much land is being used for hotels. Ambience of the overall resort begins to take a back seat and of course more hotel land means less that can go into park expansion or new gates. There’s also something to be said for “green space” between properties. There are parts of Disney now where that separation and the immersion is lost due to overcrowded sight lines from development. After a certain point, if they want to redevelop older resorts, fine. But to keep clearing trees to build more and more timeshare? Talk about diluting the value. There’s already plenty of DVC to go around, they just have to artificially manipulate the market with restrictions to make it appear less so.

I just feel the idea that there needs to be a guaranteed endless stream of new inventory at new resorts is flawed from an overall resort planning perspective. They would be better served selling Lakeshore and then, after about 1 more resort max, maybe adding a wing or a tower here or there until 2042 gives them redevelopment options.

Plus the repeat DVC guest has the reputation of being very thrifty on their trips. Is that what they really want? As many coolers at the pool and dinners in the room as possible? I thought we’re targeting big money stays now? The restaurants weren’t packed in 2025. So make more kitchen rooms to fix that?

I do agree that Disney’s target has moved up in income category and that does make moderates and values less attractive to build. But to an extent is also makes DVC members less attractive. After the initial buy in that Disney uses to recoup its development costs, it’s not a bucket list, wallet emptying vacation for the stereotypical DVC member.

 

[Tatebeck]

From a resort planning perspective, the hotels exist to service park access. That’s ultimately the value. There is a point where you reach critical mass and too much land is being used for hotels. Ambience of the overall resort begins to take a back seat and of course more hotel land means less that can go into park expansion or new gates. There’s also something to be said for “green space” between properties. There are parts of Disney now where that separation and the immersion is lost due to overcrowded sight lines from development. After a certain point, if they want to redevelop older resorts, fine. But to keep clearing trees to build more and more timeshare? Talk about diluting the value. There’s already plenty of DVC to go around, they just have to artificially manipulate the market with restrictions to make it appear less so.

I just feel the idea that there needs to be a guaranteed endless stream of new inventory at new resorts is flawed from an overall resort planning perspective. They would be better served selling Lakeshore and then, after about 1 more resort max, maybe adding a wing or a tower here or there until 2042 gives them redevelopment options.

Plus the repeat DVC guest has the reputation of being very thrifty on their trips. Is that what they really want? As many coolers at the pool and dinners in the room as possible? I thought we’re targeting big money stays now? The restaurants weren’t packed in 2025. So make more kitchen rooms to fix that?

I do agree that Disney’s target has moved up in income category and that does make moderates and values less attractive to build. But to an extent is also makes DVC members less attractive. After the initial buy in that Disney uses to recoup its development costs, it’s not a bucket list, wallet emptying vacation for the stereotypical DVC member.

I see what you are getting at, but I do think it is still a smart long term play from Disney. And obviously they must too since they keep using the DVC strategy.

In actuality they do not have to endlessly build at new locations, just keep expanding until 2042, then they have a large number of sites that they can demolish/rebuild, retheme, or just refurbish and resell. At that point they can reuse the same sites over and over again as they expire, and recapture initial purchase prices again and again as time goes on. If the parks get way too crowded they can expand like they are doing now or just build a 5th gate. They can also just continue to raise prices and that will lower attendance as well. They can also increase and give more perks to guests staying on site to increase on-site stays and decrease off-site guests other than local passholders.

Even though a returning DVC member may spend less on a return trip than a family going all out on a once in a lifetime trip, they are still spending more than a budget conscious family who drives in, stays off site, packs, their lunch, and just buys the entry tickets. And they provide stability for the parks at the same time. A win-win

 

[Brian Noble]

I believe there will not be a fifth major gate at WDW in my lifetime. Why? Because the bulk of attendance lives in the US; US vacations are barely long enough, on average, to visit all four parks; and they are getting shorter, not longer. There will need to be MASSIVE cultural changes for that to reverse course. Instead, I expect a steady continuation of the Park expansion that's been going on since New Fantasyland.

Setting that aside, selling DVC has several attractive features. One is that the ROI happens much more quickly vs. a traditional hotel, and that's pretty obvious. Being able to recycle capital more quickly is a big lever for the company. The less obvious---and possibly more important---reason is that Disney is "selling risk" to DVC buyers. A DVC member is on the hook for the upkeep and operation of the resort, even if Disney vacations become much less attractive. Not so for cash resorts---and a few of those have been shuttered in the past when demand warranted it. Closed hotels do not contribute to the bottom line.

I think it is no accident that Disney more or less stopped building new cash resorts after 9/11 and the resulting crash in travel demand. Lakeshore is only the third to open since then. The first was AoA, but the bones of that were built before 9/11. The second was Gran Destino, but that is primarily in service to convention traffic---and I suspect that has become much more precarious post-lockdown.

To be honest, I'm a little surprised Lakeshore is being built as large as it is and with cash rooms. It is a big departure from the last 20+ years.

 

[PolyRob]

From a resort planning perspective, the hotels exist to service park access. That’s ultimately the value. There is a point where you reach critical mass and too much land is being used for hotels. Ambience of the overall resort begins to take a back seat and of course more hotel land means less that can go into park expansion or new gates. There’s also something to be said for “green space” between properties. There are parts of Disney now where that separation and the immersion is lost due to overcrowded sight lines from development. After a certain point, if they want to redevelop older resorts, fine. But to keep clearing trees to build more and more timeshare? Talk about diluting the value. There’s already plenty of DVC to go around, they just have to artificially manipulate the market with restrictions to make it appear less so.

I just feel the idea that there needs to be a guaranteed endless stream of new inventory at new resorts is flawed from an overall resort planning perspective. They would be better served selling Lakeshore and then, after about 1 more resort max, maybe adding a wing or a tower here or there until 2042 gives them redevelopment options.

Plus the repeat DVC guest has the reputation of being very thrifty on their trips. Is that what they really want? As many coolers at the pool and dinners in the room as possible? I thought we’re targeting big money stays now? The restaurants weren’t packed in 2025. So make more kitchen rooms to fix that?

I do agree that Disney’s target has moved up in income category and that does make moderates and values less attractive to build. But to an extent is also makes DVC members less attractive. After the initial buy in that Disney uses to recoup its development costs, it’s not a bucket list, wallet emptying vacation for the stereotypical DVC member.

I see what you are getting at, but I do think it is still a smart long term play from Disney. And obviously they must too since they keep using the DVC strategy.

In actuality they do not have to endlessly build at new locations, just keep expanding until 2042, then they have a large number of sites that they can demolish/rebuild, retheme, or just refurbish and resell. At that point they can reuse the same sites over and over again as they expire, and recapture initial purchase prices again and again as time goes on. If the parks get way too crowded they can expand like they are doing now or just build a 5th gate. They can also just continue to raise prices and that will lower attendance as well. They can also increase and give more perks to guests staying on site to increase on-site stays and decrease off-site guests other than local passholders.

Even though a returning DVC member may spend less on a return trip than a family going all out on a once in a lifetime trip, they are still spending more than a budget conscious family who drives in, stays off site, packs, their lunch, and just buys the entry tickets. And they provide stability for the parks at the same time. A win-win

Yes, look at what Disney did with PVB IT and LSL. PVB IT sticks out like a sore thumb and LSL towers over Pioneer Hall.

People hated what bungalows did to Poly. And does BLT really look better next to CR than a Garden Wing? IDK, but it was still built. Disney doesn't care, at least not anymore. More keys = more money.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

And then here’s the other take on hotel development: Disney is actually targeting the mid-tier, not high end, guest with the DVC product. It’s actually the new moderate. It’s the family with too many kids to be able to afford to stay in a fancy hotel, so they create this themed villa alternative that when you honestly compare it to other hotels around the world isn’t that fancy after all (used to be, but that’s my point - they’ve moved away from it as DVC has grown).

There is a Four Seasons on property now. Bonnet Creek (technically on property) has a Waldorf and a JW. I would not be surprised to see more high end hotel brands open “on” property with Deluxe resort benefits like a Fairmont, St. Regis or a Rosewood. In other words, there may be a strategic shift that has taken place, aside from the main building of the Grand Floridian, which simply outsources the luxury guest lodging.

It would explain the endless dissonance from long time Disney World vacationers who remember the room service, the spas and massages in the fitness centers, the plush well themed room interiors, the fancier service at dining, etc. and can’t stop pointing out how current leadership is “getting it wrong” on design, finish and amenity choices. They may, in fact, be getting it exactly correct but just not coming out and telling us they have actually decided to aim lower with their branded hotels. The leaders are old enough to remember those glory days.

For the record, I disagree with the invasion of non Disney luxury brand hotels on property. The whole point of the bubble is none of those brands and their own approach to hospitality is supposed to exist - just the Disney brand and way.

Unless your “high end” customer wants/expects something better I suppose. Instead of giving it to them, just outsource it.

 

[atthebeachclub]

The less obvious---and possibly more important---reason is that Disney is "selling risk" to DVC buyers. A DVC member is on the hook for the upkeep and operation of the resort, even if Disney vacations become much less attractive.

This is such an important point that I think does not get the consideration it deserves.