Allure going, going, gone...

[loribell]

So here is a real life example; I am a parent with 3 kids, I have bought at SSR, I am planning my yearly trip to Disney. Where do you think I am going to try to reserve at? SSR? If you agree, then you are deluding yourself, the majority will try to book at the resort with the best marquee amenity.

I HAVE 4 KIDS! I BOOKED SSR INTENTIONALLY! SO YOU ARE DELUDING YOURSELF!

I guess all owners are trying to book at BCV because it has the only marquee amenity!?! You've got to be kidding me!

 

[MichelleB]

I agree with Jollymon and Missippian...I think SSR has changed things and I also agree that posters are reading more into Jollymon's comments than meant. I do agree that reserving a resort 1 month out is a gamble and if you get anything, you are lucky. That being said, I also experience problems at the 7 month mark and my DH and I have had the same conversation and think SSR has impacted that. There are so many owners of SSR that are probably not staying at the resort, but I have to admit that I'm an OKW owner that has only stayed there once. When we bought our first contract (HHI), our guide told us several times that getting what we'd like on-site would not be an issue. I loved our guide, but how misleading that comment has been. We've not had trouble getting either VWL or BCV in the past and still can (just did for our Jan. trip) but it must be done right on the 7 month mark and calling day by day to be safe. I sit waiting for the 9:00 MS opening and have not had a problem. The only time we've had issues was for our upcoming Thanksgiving trip that we didn't reserve at the 7 month mark because we weren't sure we were going until about 6 months. Only thing we could get was SSR. I'm waitlisted for anywhere else except OKW. OKW and SSR are both very relaxing but the size of the resort and proximity (or lack of) to the parks is the deterrent for us. I don't like having to get on a bus or trek 3 young kids what seems like forever to get around a resort. The only time we stayed at OKW, we had to take the bus to HH (the kids were too young to walk that far). It's a pain in the neck to us. So we opt to stay anywhere but such a large resort. They're just too spread out for us. We're not particular about any of the other resorts. I know there's a huge draw to AKV and we had the opportunity to stay there for our Jan. 2008 trip and took BCV instead simply because we don't know what it's like yet and want to go see it first (which we'll do while there in Nov) and can book it another time. There are lots of choices with DVC but I do wholeheartedly agree that when the large quantity of owners at SSR came into the reservation mix, it's hindered other locations. When 1 resort stands out as always available, it makes one wonder why.

 

[pilferk]

I agree with Jollymon and Missippian...I think SSR has changed things and I also agree that posters are reading more into Jollymon's comments than meant. I do agree that reserving a resort 1 month out is a gamble and if you get anything, you are lucky. That being said, I also experience problems at the 7 month mark and my DH and I have had the same conversation and think SSR has impacted that. There are so many owners of SSR that are probably not staying at the resort, but I have to admit that I'm an OKW owner that has only stayed there once. When we bought our first contract (HHI), our guide told us several times that getting what we'd like on-site would not be an issue. I loved our guide, but how misleading that comment has been. We've not had trouble getting either VWL or BCV in the past and still can (just did for our Jan. trip) but it must be done right on the 7 month mark and calling day by day to be safe. I sit waiting for the 9:00 MS opening and have not had a problem. The only time we've had issues was for our upcoming Thanksgiving trip that we didn't reserve at the 7 month mark because we weren't sure we were going until about 6 months. Only thing we could get was SSR. I'm waitlisted for anywhere else except OKW. OKW and SSR are both very relaxing but the size of the resort and proximity (or lack of) to the parks is the deterrent for us. I don't like having to get on a bus or trek 3 young kids what seems like forever to get around a resort. The only time we stayed at OKW, we had to take the bus to HH (the kids were too young to walk that far). It's a pain in the neck to us. So we opt to stay anywhere but such a large resort. They're just too spread out for us. We're not particular about any of the other resorts. I know there's a huge draw to AKV and we had the opportunity to stay there for our Jan. 2008 trip and took BCV instead simply because we don't know what it's like yet and want to go see it first (which we'll do while there in Nov) and can book it another time. There are lots of choices with DVC but I do wholeheartedly agree that when the large quantity of owners at SSR came into the reservation mix, it's hindered other locations. When 1 resort stands out as always available, it makes one wonder why.

I actually AGREE with you, but that's not what Jollymon has been stating, really.

The issue you express, above, isn't with SSR, specifcially, it's with increased membership as a whole, and possibly with ANY large resort being added to the system. Everything you detail, above, would pretty much be an issue when adding 800 units worth of new members to the system. SSR DID tip the balance because of it's large influx in membership at a single resort. AKV seems to be tipping it a bit further "back" toward equilibrium, and assuming the next resort is CRV at around the same number of units, that will do the same...by providing more options to those wanting to trade out. I don't know if that's their intent or not, but it seems to be working that way.

From a business perspective, if that IS there intent (again, I don't know if it is) it makes a bit more sense to build the "anchor" resort (SSR) first and THEN build more options because the anchor will give more overall availability to membership for the overburdened small resorts (BCV and VWL). That's what they did at the start of DVC (OKW first, "options" with fewer units 2nd), so it may be that this is all part of their plan (or not...have I disclaimed enough that I don't know?).

But Jollymon has been saying 1) There's no compelling reason to stay at SSR and 2) Because of THAT, more SSR owners trade out than at other resorts. And thus, it's all SSR's fault that he couldn't book at BCV at the 1 month mark.....

I've seen no proof that any of those things are true.

 

[MissMet]

I agree with Jollymon and Missippian...I think SSR has changed things and I also agree that posters are reading more into Jollymon's comments than meant. I do agree that reserving a resort 1 month out is a gamble and if you get anything, you are lucky. That being said, I also experience problems at the 7 month mark and my DH and I have had the same conversation and think SSR has impacted that. There are so many owners of SSR that are probably not staying at the resort, but I have to admit that I'm an OKW owner that has only stayed there once. When we bought our first contract (HHI), our guide told us several times that getting what we'd like on-site would not be an issue. I loved our guide, but how misleading that comment has been. We've not had trouble getting either VWL or BCV in the past and still can (just did for our Jan. trip) but it must be done right on the 7 month mark and calling day by day to be safe. I sit waiting for the 9:00 MS opening and have not had a problem. The only time we've had issues was for our upcoming Thanksgiving trip that we didn't reserve at the 7 month mark because we weren't sure we were going until about 6 months. Only thing we could get was SSR. I'm waitlisted for anywhere else except OKW. OKW and SSR are both very relaxing but the size of the resort and proximity (or lack of) to the parks is the deterrent for us. I don't like having to get on a bus or trek 3 young kids what seems like forever to get around a resort. The only time we stayed at OKW, we had to take the bus to HH (the kids were too young to walk that far). It's a pain in the neck to us. So we opt to stay anywhere but such a large resort. They're just too spread out for us. We're not particular about any of the other resorts. I know there's a huge draw to AKV and we had the opportunity to stay there for our Jan. 2008 trip and took BCV instead simply because we don't know what it's like yet and want to go see it first (which we'll do while there in Nov) and can book it another time. There are lots of choices with DVC but I do wholeheartedly agree that when the large quantity of owners at SSR came into the reservation mix, it's hindered other locations. When 1 resort stands out as always available, it makes one wonder why.

I agree 100%!

I'm a SSR owner who dislikes staying there. I've only stayed there 4 days. I'm not bashing SSR, it's just not my taste. I like the hotel feel, where every day you walk through the lobby & are indoors the whole time. SSR has the motel feel, where you have to make a special trip to see the lobby. I like being in the middle of the action, not secluded & quiet. Some like to be away from the action. That's the great part of DVC, there's a resort for everyone.

So I'm the exact DVC member the OP is talking about & my parents own at SSR as well & they never stay there either. So there's two DVC families that are "guilty" of exactly what the OP is talking about right there.

I don't feel she's bashing SSR. It's not about SSR, it's about the SIZE of SSR & it's not so great location compared to most of the DVC resorts.

At least that's how I read it.

 

[OneMoreTry]

....It used to be that I could reserve BCV in the second week of September, a month out (we do a lot of our traveling at the spur of the moment). Now it is completely booked. Only chance of getting BCV is to book 11 months out (I own at BCV). .....

Andrew Medina


....

Are you posting this after just one experience of not being able to get a reservation?

Remember that OKW sold out BEFORE the likes of BCV, WLV and BWV existed and it's members were perfectly happy -- and still are -- to stay at their home resort.

If you want a last minute reservation you'll have to take what you can get. The world is a crowded place and that's a bummer. If you don't want to fight for a place you have to go somewhere that's not as popular.

Which is why WDW is not our #1 vacation destination spot!!!

 

[Jollymon]

"But Jollymon has been saying 1) There's no compelling reason to stay at SSR and 2) Because of THAT, more SSR owners trade out than at other resorts. And thus, it's all SSR's fault that he couldn't book at BCV at the 1 month mark....."

Pilferk, you are almost correct in your summary, I would change it to read as follows: "1) There is a large contingent of owners who find no compelling reason to stay at SSR and ...".

I cannot, in any way offer any scientific or numerical proof to my beliefs; they are based solely on my observations, conversations with others, and (as I have stated often) based on my current station in life (in terms of likes, dislikes, etc.).

I think that you will agree that the premise is not without merit and can be construed as a rational conclusion; build an 800 room resort without a compelling reason to stay there, and you will have people flocking to resorts that do offer compelling reasons.

So in essence, we are debating whether or not SSR has compelling enough reasons to stay there, attracting not only its owners but the owners from the other resorts as well.

In this debate, my main point is that if the compelling reasons existed, then SSR would be constantly sold out, which is clearly not the case.

 

[flechette]

Umm I almost hate to weigh in on this: but in OP defense, when hubby and I toured SSR in May 2006 the guide flat out said we did not have to ever stay is SSR if we didn't like the resort. We had a last minute substitute, Gibb was busy I think her name was Susan? She was nice enough but kinda pushy we felt. We had previously told Gibb there was no way we were buying in before Tim came back from his 2nd tour of Iraq (he got sent to Kuwait instead but we didn't know that at the time) but we did want to see SSR and toss around possibilities. She was as close to hard sell as we had encountered so far.

Susan(?) really pushed staying at other resorts to the point when she left us alone for a few minutes Tim asked "what's wrong with this place that she thinks no one wants to stay here?"

If this was our experience on the tour, it's hard to believe no one else encountered it tho I doubt the majority of folks did. I realize this in anecdotal "evidence" but I don't think the OP is entirely wrong. If nothing else keeping the proportions the same if 10% of each resort owners want to stay elsewhere -then more SSR folks will show up just because the resort is bigger...

however I have no opinion on the rest of the discussion

 

[Chuck S]

"But Jollymon has been saying 1) There's no compelling reason to stay at SSR and 2) Because of THAT, more SSR owners trade out than at other resorts. And thus, it's all SSR's fault that he couldn't book at BCV at the 1 month mark....."

Pilferk, you are almost correct in your summary, I would change it to read as follows: "1) There is a large contingent of owners who find no compelling reason to stay at SSR and ...".

I cannot, in any way offer any scientific or numerical proof to my beliefs; they are based solely on my observations, conversations with others, and (as I have stated often) based on my current station in life (in terms of likes, dislikes, etc.).

I think that you will agree that the premise is not without merit and can be construed as a rational conclusion; build an 800 room resort without a compelling reason to stay there, and you will have people flocking to resorts that do offer compelling reasons.

So in essence, we are debating whether or not SSR has compelling enough reasons to stay there, attracting not only its owners but the owners from the other resorts as well.

In this debate, my main point is that if the compelling reasons existed, then SSR would be constantly sold out, which is clearly not the case.

Since you seemed to have missed my first post...

What do you consider the "compelling reasons" or"marqueee amenities" of ALL the different DVC resorts? Because I, as an OKW, see absolutely no reason to stay at BCV or BWV, I don't like the location and I'm not a swimmer. Not that they aren't lovely resorts, but what YOU find attractive may not be attractive to other DVC owners.

 

[pilferk]

"But Jollymon has been saying 1) There's no compelling reason to stay at SSR and 2) Because of THAT, more SSR owners trade out than at other resorts. And thus, it's all SSR's fault that he couldn't book at BCV at the 1 month mark....."

Pilferk, you are almost correct in your summary, I would change it to read as follows: "1) There is a large contingent of owners who find no compelling reason to stay at SSR and ...".

But do you have proof that the contingent is larger than, say, OKW owners who do the same thing? Or larger than the contingent of VWL? %-wise, of course....

I cannot, in any way offer any scientific or numerical proof to my beliefs; they are based solely on my observations, conversations with others, and (as I have stated often) based on my current station in life (in terms of likes, dislikes, etc.).

Which, as has been pointed out and debated over and over, in similar threads, simply isn't a compelling basis. Anecdotal evidence is simply that...and without any sort of qualifying statistical data......simply doesn't provide solid ground to a hypothesis...especially this one. Your observations, conversations with others, and current situation in life are all skewed by one very important thing: You. Your perceptions, interpretations, existing opinions, and expereinces all lead that anecdotal data to be...well....junk. Just like any data collected here on the DIS is perverted by being a homogonized sample set. You're making an assumption here, and it's not one that has ever had any compelling evidence presented to support it. You want discussion...that's why you're getting the responses you are.

I think that you will agree that the premise is not without merit and can be construed as a rational conclusion; build an 800 room resort without a compelling reason to stay there, and you will have people flocking to resorts that do offer compelling reasons.

Sure, but just because it's a rational construct in a theoretical sense doesn't mean it's applicable in this situation.

Again, you're playing what if and constructing a straw man......so you can get out the stick and beat it. What if monkey's flew? Disney would be INVADED by flying monkeys and we'd all have to leave Orlando! HELP! QUICK!! We have to kill all the monkeys.

So in essence, we are debating whether or not SSR has compelling enough reasons to stay there, attracting not only its owners but the owners from the other resorts as well.

In this debate, my main point is that if the compelling reasons existed, then SSR would be constantly sold out, which is clearly not the case.

No, you're asserting there isn't. You're not really debating anything. Debate would, to me, imply providing evidence to support your position....

As for your assumption about SSR always being full if it had "compelling reasons": Not true. Look at the breakdown I provided earlier. It's mathematical proof that the above assumption is false. Assuming an exactly like % of trade out across all resorts...SSR still has availability after satisfying 100% of demand from other resorts. That's simply the nature of being larger than the rest....more (numerically) people out and fewer (numerically) people in. It shows there is adequate evidence SSR would have availability (to handle the rest of the "overflow" from other resorts and SSR itself) regardless of "compelling reasons". That's rather the point.

If you want to discuss that adding a LARGE resort was, perhaps, ill advised (I still disagree, but only based on speculation), go for it. At least there's some data to support SSR adding to the overburdening of the small resorts.

But you're not. You're saying SSR is a flawed resort because of it's nature/make up/design/implementation/services/etc. And that because of that, lots and lots and lots of members simply bought to get into the system so they could stay elsewhere. There's NOTHING to support that other than your conjecture based on anecdotal data. I just don't think many people are going to find that compelling.....I certainly don't. Reads more like rabble rousing of the type dumbo71 used to engage in before being banned.

 

[pilferk]

Umm I almost hate to weigh in on this: but in OP defense, when hubby and I toured SSR in May 2006 the guide flat out said we did not have to ever stay is SSR if we didn't like the resort. We had a last minute substitute, Gibb was busy I think her name was Susan? She was nice enough but kinda pushy we felt. We had previously told Gibb there was no way we were buying in before Tim came back from his 2nd tour of Iraq (he got sent to Kuwait instead but we didn't know that at the time) but we did want to see SSR and toss around possibilities. She was as close to hard sell as we had encountered so far.

Susan(?) really pushed staying at other resorts to the point when she left us alone for a few minutes Tim asked "what's wrong with this place that she thinks no one wants to stay here?"

If this was our experience on the tour, it's hard to believe no one else encountered it tho I doubt the majority of folks did. I realize this in anecdotal "evidence" but I don't think the OP is entirely wrong. If nothing else keeping the proportions the same if 10% of each resort owners want to stay elsewhere -then more SSR folks will show up just because the resort is bigger...

however I have no opinion on the rest of the discussion

I'm sure some people WERE sold like that......but the implication is that's why the majority (or a very large contingent) bought, or were sold.

I think I've just about heard every "DVC tour" story there is: Sold on staying elsewhere, sold on dues not going up as much as room rates, sold on prepaid vacations, sold on flexibility, sold on whatever category you can think of in relation to DVC. I've no doubt every one probably happened.

Again, different people also remember different things, and are sold on different things. Guides are also good at "reading" people. Maybe she stressed that because Gibb had told her you didn't want to buy SSR, and she just made a leap that you didn't like it. Who knows....

My point being: I've seen no real compelling data to indicate that trading out occurs more (% wise) with SSR owners, or was more of a factor with SSR owners. Seeing it assumed in order to make some good sized leaps of logic just doesn't seem compelling to me.

Now, on your point about 10% being a larger # at SSR than other resorts...I say EXACTLY! That's the piece the OP seems to not be taking into account...

 

[Jollymon]

Pilferk:
Are you not doing the same exact thing as I am by basing some of your beliefs on assumptions? I quote:
"It's mathematical proof that the above assumption is false. Assuming an exactly like % of trade out across all resorts..."

What if your assumption regarding the % of trade outs is wrong?

I am not so heavily invested in this belief as to actually perform statistical studies to prove a point. So if we base my 'assertions' solely on empirical studies, they are wrong because I have no such information. Of course, though, you don't have any empirical evidence that proves otherwise.

I will give you this though, much of my assertions are based on the fact that SSR has plenty of vacancies while the other resorts do not. How do you account for that? Please do not quote the study you presented earlier as I consider that study flawed; it is based on the very assumption that we are 'debating' here. I do not think that the % of SSR owners that trade out is identical to other resorts, my feeling is that it is significanlty higher.

Thanks

Andrew Medina

 

[DisDaydreamer]

Jollymon, I'm suprised that after 5 years of ownership, you haven't gotten more astute about how and when to book the resort you want. You say Nick is much better? Well, then YOU go stay there and DRIVE to get to the parks. I'll stay onsite at my choice of 6 completely different and diverse DVC resorts and let someone else do the driving. I'll luxuriate in my personal Jacuzzi when I come back for my midday break, and I'll let the older kids or others choose their own schedule, since we wont all be depending on a car to get us back and forth. Then I'll sit back and count how much I saved over the course of the 50 years of ownership.

If it's not for you...sell. There's no need to convince others it isn't for them.

Diane... I don't think I've seen this side of you... Well said too.

 

[MissMet]

Pilferk:
Are you not doing the same exact thing as I am by basing some of your beliefs on assumptions? I quote:
"It's mathematical proof that the above assumption is false. Assuming an exactly like % of trade out across all resorts..."

What if your assumption regarding the % of trade outs is wrong?

I am not so heavily invested in this belief as to actually perform statistical studies to prove a point. So if we base my 'assertions' solely on empirical studies, they are wrong because I have no such information. Of course, though, you don't have any empirical evidence that proves otherwise.

I will give you this though, much of my assertions are based on the fact that SSR has plenty of vacancies while the other resorts do not. How do you account for that? Please do not quote the study you presented earlier as I consider that study flawed; it is based on the very assumption that we are 'debating' here. I do not think that the % of SSR owners that trade out is identical to other resorts, my feeling is that it is significanlty higher.

Thanks

Andrew Medina

Will there be a test at the end of this forum?

Well put.

 

[pilferk]

Pilferk:
Are you not doing the same exact thing as I am by basing some of your beliefs on assumptions? I quote:
"It's mathematical proof that the above assumption is false. Assuming an exactly like % of trade out across all resorts..."

No, I'm forming an equivalent, creating a level playing field to demonstrate the influence of size....making all things equal. It's the only fair basis you have without statistical data. That's why it's a proof. You've asserted the only reason SSR has vacancies is that it doesn't draw. I've proven that assumption is not the only possible reason, and is thus false..

What if your assumption regarding the % of trade outs is wrong?

It might be...I'd garner that on a % basis the smaller resort owners might trade out MORE simply because it takes fewer of them to raise the %.

I'm not making an assumption and basing my conclusion on it...I'm showing there are alternate reasonings bourne out by a much more solid basis. The assumption that all things are equal is a valid method in creating a proof. Using equivalent numbers is a valid "jumping off point"....and provides a more viable platform for discussion than conjecture based on anecdotal data. I'm not trying to PROVE my example is valid, only that, all things being equal, SSR influences supply and demand, even IF demand was equal. And that the factor shown by the numbers would lead one to believe size is a lot more compelling a factor than anecdotal data.

I am not so heavily invested in this belief as to actually perform statistical studies to prove a point. So if we base my 'assertions' solely on empirical studies, they are wrong because I have no such information. Of course, though, you don't have any empirical evidence that proves otherwise.

No, I don't. But then again, I didn't make any assertions...simply called into question your assumption. I don't KNOW one way or the other....I only know there isn't any publically available data to back up yours. And that there are plausible scenarios that explain away your observations based on other scenarios.

I will give you this though, much of my assertions are based on the fact that SSR has plenty of vacancies while the other resorts do not. How do you account for that?

I gave you an alternate reasoning. You simply choose to discount it...I would guess because you don't like the conclusion it displays. But it's a fair statistical assessment.

Bigger means more vacancies.

Please do not quote the study you presented earlier as I consider that study flawed; it is based on the very assumption that we are 'debating' here. I do not think that the % of SSR owners that trade out is identical to other resorts, my feeling is that it is significanlty higher.

Thanks

Andrew Medina

Explain it's flaw? Just because you consider it flawed doesn't make it so. Your "feeling" isn't bourne out by anything real. A much more logical assumption would be that all things are equal, certainly a much more fair assumption....because we have no data to suggest otherwise. Looking at that, you can see SSR's influence on demand, regardless of the factors you think you see. You discount it because you dislike what it displays...but seemingly have no proof to support that objection. Fair enough....

 

[Jollymon]

Since you seemed to have missed my first post...

What do you consider the "compelling reasons" or" marquee amenities" of ALL the different DVC resorts? Because I, as an OKW, see absolutely no reason to stay at BCV or BWV, I don't like the location and I'm not a swimmer. Not that they aren't lovely resorts, but what YOU find attractive may not be attractive to other DVC owners.

Chuck
If you read my prior posts, I think you will agree that I have clearly mentioned that the compelling reasons are mine personally. The debate has ensued when I say that there are many that share these same ideals as to the 'compelling reasons'.

But to answer your question:
VWL: Compelling for its wooded location, proximity to water sports and MK - it makes you feel like you are in the woods, camping.
OKW: Compelling for the large rooms, 'village' lifestyle, and wonderful water views would definitely consider for our next week long stay.
VB: Beach - no need to say more - I am looking to buy there
Boardwalk: Not sure, I have not stayed there - but boardwalk and proximity to epcot
BCV: Stormalong bay, Epcot, Boardwalk
HHI: Beach - lodge layout

As for SSR, I did not find anything compelling to make me want to return. I guess if I played golf, went to DD often, or enjoyed spa treatments it would be different, but unfortunately it is not. The pool area is nice, but too small for the size of the resort. I found the architecture of the main building and those surrounding it quite disconcerting, almost as if there was something there before and they just reworked the facade. Case in point, the exits of the main pool, by the bike rentals and lockers, are separated from the main road by a sidewalk. If a kid were to run out of the pool area he could be hit by a car. Tell me one other resort that does this - it just made me believe that they worked in the pool into the available space - maybe that is why it is small in respect to the resort size.

 

[MichelleB]

Oh, for pity sakes...can't we all have our own opinion and not debate everything?

Does jollymon have statistics to back up his statement that SSR has a majority of owners that use their pts at other resorts? No. Can he still feel this way? Yes. Do I believe he's correct? Yes. Does that mean all of you have to also? No. I'm right there with his thinking in my experience with DVC for 8 years. Does that make my opinion wrong? No...it's just my own. I happen to think that up until SSR came into the mix, most people were using pts primarily at their own resorts (before you flame, I said primarily, not always). Now you have 800+ units worth of owners that even if 1/2 are using pts elsewhere, is 400 more than it was. As stated earlier, BWV, BCV, and VWL are small resorts and we're seeing them more difficult to get into. SSR was the first resort to offer the new term (50 years again) so it was more appealing than the others (by resale). I have to admit that I thought about purchasing some pts for the extra years, but didn't. I'm sure there were lots of other people that did and didn't have the intention of using those pts there. Do I have proof? Nope, but I still feel strongly about it. We aren't always right or wrong, sometimes there's gray. This may be one of those - my belief may not be 100% correct but I'm still entitled to my belief as is jollymon.

 

[pilferk]

Chuck

VWL: Compelling for its wooded location, proximity to water sports and MK - it makes you feel like you are in the woods, camping.
OKW: Compelling for the large rooms, 'village' lifestyle, and wonderful water views would definitely consider for our next week long stay.
VB: Beach - no need to say more - I am looking to buy there
Boardwalk: Not sure, I have not stayed there - but boardwalk and proximity to epcot
BCV: Stormalong bay, Epcot, Boardwalk
HHI: Beach - lodge layout

As for SSR, I did not find anything compelling to make me want to return. I guess if I played golf, went to DD often, or enjoyed spa treatments it would be different, but unfortunately it is not. The pool area is nice, but too small for the size of the resort. I found the architecture of the main building and those surrounding it quite disconcerting, almost as if there was something there before and they just reworked the facade. Case in point, the exits of the main pool, by the bike rentals and lockers, are separated from the main road by a sidewalk. If a kid were to run out of the pool area he could be hit by a car. Tell me one other resort that does this - it just made me believe that they worked in the pool into the available space - maybe that is why it is small in respect to the resort size.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. You poo poo SSR's amenities, which could just as easily be done with any of the above resorts amenities that you list.

I guess it bears saying again: Just because YOU don't find them compelling doesn't mean they aren't.

 

[pilferk]

Oh, for pity sakes...can't we all have our own opinion and not debate everything?

Posting on an open forum seems to be an invitation to open discussion, no?

Does jollymon have statistics to back up his statement that SSR has a majority of owners that use their pts at other resorts? No.

Exactly

Can he still feel this way? Yes.

Absolutely. And so can the rest of the Dis posters.

He can have any feeling or opinion he wants. And had he said "I don't see anything compelling to draw ME to SSR", we'd be all set here. But when making blanket statments (not assertions of opinion, FYI) that SSR is flawed and is to blame for not being able to book BCV at one month out, or that you'd have to be delusional to think people would book rooms there.....you're likely going to hear MANY others opinions, too.

Do I believe he's correct? Yes. Does that mean all of you have to also? No.

I just question the basis for the belief. I'm a "prove it to me" kinda guy. If you're not that kind of person, great....so long as it works for you. But I question why YOU can state your opinion on the subject, yet those of us with contary opinions, or even those who just cite a lack of real compelling evidence to support yours, aren't supposed to.

I'm right there with his thinking in my experience with DVC for 8 years. Does that make my opinion wrong? No...it's just my own. I happen to think that up until SSR came into the mix, most people were using pts primarily at their own resorts (before you flame, I said primarily, not always).

Not to beat a dead horse, but...why would you assume that anythings changed? That's the part I don't get.....what compelling information is out there that would indicate things have changed. Simply having demand be higher? That's a function of adding an 800 lb gorilla into the system with the options in place to trade out into. Why is it that people think that MORE SSR (%-wise) owners trade out? I just don't understand....It seems more based on personal like/dislike of SSR than anything really compelling. Even the anecdotal (junk) data seems an afterthought.

Now you have 800+ units worth of owners that even if 1/2 are using pts elsewhere, is 400 more than it was. As stated earlier, BWV, BCV, and VWL are small resorts and we're seeing them more difficult to get into.

BWV is actually fine...closer to the size of AKV. BCV and VWL are tiny in comparison to the membership. I don't think there's ANY way to get around, just based on size, they are always going to be in higher demand, simply based on #'s, than the larger resorts.

SSR was the first resort to offer the new term (50 years again) so it was more appealing than the others (by resale). I have to admit that I thought about purchasing some pts for the extra years, but didn't. I'm sure there were lots of other people that did and didn't have the intention of using those pts there. Do I have proof? Nope, but I still feel strongly about it. We aren't always right or wrong, sometimes there's gray. This may be one of those - my belief may not be 100% correct but I'm still entitled to my belief as is jollymon.

What good would those points do (to add on) outside the 11 month window when buying them means you KNOW you are competing with EVERY DVC owner over availability. I would think the DVC owners, who KNOW the system might be less likely to do what you think.....because you lose the advantages of having exclusivity on your home resort. Wouldn't you?

Again, you can believe anything you want. But when others object.....you have to give them the same leeway, right?

 

[mikesmom]

OK, guys, here's the compelling reason to go to SSR: It's onsite!. Yep, I think it's that simple. Surely there are some "old-timers" that have been around as long or longer than I have that remember before SSR was built, much of the complaining from members who couldn't get ressies when they wanted them was from HHI or Vero owners who couldn't get onsite at high traffic times. I'm talking before 9/11 when vacation traffic was as high or higher than it is now. The general feel around here was "Why doesn't DVC build a bigger resort onsite so we have more options?" "We need bigger resorts than VWL or BCV".

"We" all hollered for more onsite DVC rooms and we got them. And, apparently, we're still not happy. The fact that you can get some accomodation onsite at 1 month out is a testament to their planning.
JMHO.

 

[Jollymon]

Pilferk:
I admire your ability to breakdown my argument - this is an enviable skill. I wish I could spar at your level. Let's keep in mind that breaking down the argument because of how it is presented does not discredit the argument, just the presenter.

I understand the point you are trying to make as I think you understand mine. I may have presented my 'assertions' incorrectly for the debate, but I think that you will agree that neither my views nor yours can be proven without any type of empirical data. So at this point all we can agree is to disagree.

I do want to thank you for responding to my question regarding vacancies; your answer was "Bigger means more vacancies". I understand that anecdotal experience hold little validity with you, but you should really check out if that statement holds true - I think you will be surprised at what you find.