Anyone else getting a little annoyed?

[Chuck S]

Nope.

If they were all equal then would all still book up at the same time, even if 50% of all members trade out.

Think of it this way:
There are 100 couples at a dance and the gentlemen are all wearing black.
There are 100 girls with dresses
18 are wearing orange
13 are wearing blue
4 are wearing yellow
7 are wearing red
31 are wearing green
17 are wearing purple
10 are wearing white

The band leader tells all the gentlemen with a birthday on an odd day (half of them statistically) to leave their girl and find one in another color. After a few minutes of confusing everyone with be matched up with someone. If the (15) girls in the green dresses were beautiful, good dancers and charming the 8 from the purple and 7 from the blue would have grabbed them right away before the orange, yellow, red, and white even had a chance. However, at this dance the girls in the green are standing there while the last couple of guys finally come up and ask them to dance once they see all the other girls are taken.

My very first post in this thread was simply to say that Disney should not have had 31 of the girls wearing green, but instead should have had 11 green dresses, 10 silver, and 10 gray dresses instead.

I am not sure how it has turned into this?

Again, I disagree, if 50% of all members wanted to trade out, and SSR had 100,000 members and VWL had 25,000 members, then 50,000 SSR members want to trade into the smaller VWL, filling it up, and 12,500 would want to trade into SSR, leaving SSR with extra rooms.

 

[tjkraz]

Economics 101: The higher the demand the higher the price. The location, dining options, style, shops, etc of the GF gives it enough demand to some guests to part with $500+/night. If Disney charged $500+/night for a room at POP it would sit empty every night. If the GF was sitting empty every night they would need to lower the price. Market demand sets prices.

Demand and SUPPLY both make significant contributions to setting the price. Disney wouldn't be getting $500 per night for a Grand Floridian room if they had to fill 2800 of them instead of the 900 that actually exist.

Nevertheless, DVC isn't a free market economy and those concepts have little (if any) application. The point costs to members are set well before the first point is sold and before the resort even opens its doors.

VWL, BCV and BWV Preferred all have the exact same point chart. That didn't occur because someone plotted their characteristics and unit sizes on a demand curve and they all miraculously overlapped. It happened because someone at DVC looked at a proposed chart and said "yeah, that looks good."

While I suspect most members would enjoy vacationing in a Magic Kingdom View Grand Villa at the BLT, that doesn't seem to give us any indicators as to whether specific resorts are right-sized, priced appropriately or what motivates members to spend their points in a particular way.

This doesn't really help the arguement that SSR is on par with other DVC resorts. Some things are best left unsaid.

Who ever said anything about each resort being on par with one another? A large part of this discussion revolves around the fact that each of the resorts ARE unique, as are the likes and dislikes of owners. Those who wish to pigeonhole the resorts to fit a single magic formula appear to be the ones missing the point.

 

[Chuck S]

Who ever said anything about each resort being on par with one another? A large part of this discussion revolves around the fact that each of the resorts ARE unique, as are the likes and dislikes of owners. Those who wish to pigeonhole the resorts to fit a single magic formula appear to be the ones missing the point.

Well said!

 

[tjkraz]

Nope.

If they were all equal then would all still book up at the same time, even if 50% of all members trade out.

Think of it this way:
There are 100 couples at a dance and the gentlemen are all wearing black.
There are 100 girls with dresses
18 are wearing orange
13 are wearing blue
4 are wearing yellow
7 are wearing red
31 are wearing green
17 are wearing purple
10 are wearing white

The band leader tells all the gentlemen with a birthday on an odd day (half of them statistically) to leave their girl and find one in another color. After a few minutes of confusing everyone with be matched up with someone. If the (15) girls in the green dresses were beautiful, good dancers and charming the 8 from the purple and 7 from the blue would have grabbed them right away before the orange, yellow, red, and white even had a chance. However, at this dance the girls in the green are standing there while the last couple of guys finally come up and ask them to dance once they see all the other girls are taken.

My very first post in this thread was simply to say that Disney should not have had 31 of the girls wearing green, but instead should have had 11 green dresses, 10 silver, and 10 gray dresses instead.

I am not sure how it has turned into this?

I don't see this as a situation where everyone needs to find a dance partner before the music stops. There are many different seasons, resorts, room sizes, and room classes (views) available. Members can bank points, borrow points, deposit to RCI, trade for a cruise, stay at Tokyo Disneyland, put their points up for rental and, yes, even allow them to expire unused. Some members book right at 11 months...some book right at 7 months....some book 2 weeks out....and a whole lot of other folks book somewhere in the middle. Some people are long-time owners who just want to stay at their Home. Some are brand new members who target a specific resort for their first trip. Some want to try the latest-and-greatest resort.

The list of variables goes on and on...

The simplest scenario is this: 4200 members have decided to visit Walt Disney World the week of December 1st. 600 (both owners and non-owners) wish to stay at the Beach Club. 600 wish to stay at the BoardWalk. 600 at Saratoga....and so on.

The smaller resorts will fill and stop accepting reservations. The larger resorts will still have excess capacity after taking on the 600 bookings.

I'm not trying to prove anything about member booking trends. But I am trying to disprove the frequent theory that SSR and OKW are the last to fill because of low demand. Even with equal demand they would still be last to fill. And I suspect that even resorts like BLT or BCV would join the list if they had 1200 rooms to fill on a nightly basis.

Now do I really think that demand is equal for the resorts? No, of course not. But the varying sizes of each property, the questionable nature of the points charts, the lack of any hard data from DVC and dozens of other factors make it impossible for us to draw any educated conclusions regarding demand for any single resort.

 

[logan115]

Nope.



I am not sure how it has turned into this?

Below are a few ideas of how it may have turned into this, but please don't take this as fact, just my opinion.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but you are confusing volume and demand.

Would you say that staying in the castle is less in demand than staying at POP because it is only 1 family that is staying there and not thousands like POP? Absurd.

You statement is like saying, "People like McDonald's hamburgers better than Kobe beef because they sell a lot more hamburgers every day than Kobe beef."

However this is not the case. When calling for a last minute ressie MS will tell you that they have a lot of rooms at OKW and SSR and the rest are booked up. If they were equal, once one resort booked up, the rest should be booked at the same instant.

If they are truly equal... which they are not.

Economics 101: The higher the demand the higher the price. The location, dining options, style, shops, etc of the GF gives it enough demand to some guests to part with $500+/night. If Disney charged $500+/night for a room at POP it would sit empty every night. If the GF was sitting empty every night they would need to lower the price. Market demand sets prices. From an economic stand point things with a higer price tag have more "demand". Yes, there might be someone who prefers a Ford Taurus over a 7 series BMW, but from an economic standpoint the BMW is in more demand and thus the higher price. The fact that Ford might sell 20 times the number of the BMW does not mean that the BMW is less in demand.

Actually, it does mean the BMW is in less demand. If 20 people can buy a car for $20K, and 1 person can afford to buy a car for $50K, which car has a higher demand ? This doesn't mean the BMW isn't nicer, but if the "market" is dictating a price of $20K than it doesn't really mean the $50K is in greater demand.


This doesn't really help the arguement that SSR is on par with other DVC resorts. Some things are best left unsaid.


Many people have been saying SSR is popular because of the spa and no one cares about the proximity the other resorts have to the theme parks. Maybe real estate agents will change their slogan from "Location, location, location" to "Spa, spa, spa".

New slogan is actually THV, THV, THV (or as I like to call it VWL West......

What does that have to do with anything? It is like you keep saying, "look there is a man behind the curtain". Who cares?

Bottom line... With short notice there are only rooms at OKW and SSR. Why is everyone surprised and upset about it?

Yes, SSR does have some nice features, but I do not think it has something that attracts 1 out of 3.

When David's Point Rental has last minute points available, they are always at OKW and SSR resort only. I have never seen last minutes point available at any other resort. Sorry to muddy the discussion with facts.

Just my 2 cents, but if you don't want people piling on, please extend the same courtesy and manners to them as you would like to receive yourself. I know it's hard to tell what's meant to be a joke and what's an insult from a post, but IMHO most of your posts are shots across the bow of SSR owners - something that I find a bit odd coming from a fellow DVC owner.

Yes, I own SSR, and don't really care that much about whether anyone bashes it or not, but it's your condescending "Econ 101"-type comments to others on this board that rub me the wrong way.

FYI - believe it or not DVC owners and those that frequent here and other sites know quite a bit about supply/demand - and would think that if you took your own lessons to heart about supply/demand you wouldn't have any issues getting the room you want because you know this and aren't stuck with limited options.

In case you haven't noticed, I enjoy a healthy dose of sarcasm as well, but a piece of advice I'd offer up is to tone it done a bit and consider how your post will be taken before hitting "submit reply."

BTW, there are no issues with debating the merits of either DVC as a whole or comparing different resorts if done in a civil fashion, the two folks in my signature don't always share the same views (with me or each other) but disagree in a very respectable fashion.

But coming out and saying "Over the last 8 years I used to be able to stay at other resorts and now you SSR people screwed it up" is not going to win many folks over. The 800 lb gorilla (SSR) is here to stay, so plan accordingly.

And yep, I'm also a SSR owner...........

Chris

 

[gkrykewy]

But coming out and saying "Over the last 8 years I used to be able to stay at other resorts and now you SSR people screwed it up" is not going to win many folks over. The 800 lb gorilla (SSR) is here to stay, so plan accordingly.

And yep, I'm also a SSR owner...........

I think people often get too defensive with this stuff. I thought that the thread started from an interesting perspective. It wasn't "you SSR people screwed it up," but rather, "there's an imbalance here which is to the detriment of the membership at large - what might be done to address it?"

If steps were taken to steer more demand toward SSR, it would be a good thing for both SSR owners and non-owners. The Treehouse Villas are a great step in that direction. If the 5th theme park near DTD ever comes to pass, that would obviously be a huge deal too.

 

[dianeschlicht]

LOL! Okay, another thread to put in the "dead horse" catagory.

 

[logan115]

I think people often get too defensive with this stuff. I thought that the thread started from an interesting perspective. It wasn't "you SSR people screwed it up," but rather, "there's an imbalance here which is to the detriment of the membership at large - what might be done to address it?"

If steps were taken to steer more demand toward SSR, it would be a good thing for both SSR owners and non-owners. The Treehouse Villas are a great step in that direction. If the 5th theme park near DTD ever comes to pass, that would obviously be a huge deal too.

Agree that I don't think this was the original intent of the thread, my post was more directed at the question of "how did the thread get to this point."

Chris

 

[theww228]

The simplest scenario is this: 4200 members have decided to visit Walt Disney World the week of December 1st. 600 (both owners and non-owners) wish to stay at the Beach Club. 600 wish to stay at the BoardWalk. 600 at Saratoga....and so on.

The smaller resorts will fill and stop accepting reservations. The larger resorts will still have excess capacity after taking on the 600 bookings.

You are missing the point. If there are 600 people who want to stay at BCV, BWV, and SSR then the demand is does not match the supply. If there are 82 people that want to stay at VWL then 600 need to want to stay at SSR and only 128 people can stay at BCV. With the resorts having different amounts of supply they cannot have equal damand and keep the system in balance. If there are 600 people that want to stay at each resort then each resort needs to have 600 rooms. The issue is that 600 people want to stay at BCV and there is only 181 rooms, so 419 people did not get what they want.

In other words.... SSR is too big for the demand. With the current situation, there needs to be about 5 times as many people who prefer SSR over BCV. I am not saying that some people love SSR, but is there 5 times the number of people? If SSR would have a number of rooms that were closer to 500 instead of 1300 there would never be a bunch of SSR rooms available.

I have ZERO ill will torwards SSR owners. I have no desire or purpose to "bash" SSR owners. I have no dog in this fight. I book at 11 months at my home resort, so I personally don't care what SSR owners do or don't do. It has no effect on me. My issue is with the DVC system. It appears that they built a resort that is too big. If half the people at SSR book somewhere else at 7 months (which is entirely their right I have no issue with) they are going into other resorts and "displacing" the members there. If the members at other resorts were happy and glad that there are open spots at SSR then there would be no thread here. There are some BWV members that want to switch to SSR and they are happy that there are open rooms, but there are also members who do not want to stay at SSR and are upset. If SSR was instead built as 3 different resorts with 500 rooms each it would give the members more options.

BTW, if SSR only used 5 pts for a studio, 12 pts for a 1 BR and 20 points a night for a 2BR there would never be an open spot at SSR. The point is that there is not enough of a draw to SSR to have it booked up all the time.

Also, the 800 lb gorilla comment was not mine. I get into enought trouble on my own, I don't need the help of others.

 

[Chuck S]

If half the people at SSR book somewhere else at 7 months (which is entirely their right I have no issue with) they are going into other resorts and "displacing" the members there.

They are not displacing members, members who own at the resort should book it in the home resort priority window. That is the purpose of the window, and has been since day 1 of DVC. This was planned even before there were any other DVC resorts other than "The Disney Vacation Club Resort" (now OKW). It was in our paperwork even then. The system is working exactly as it was designed to work, sorry if some members expected anything more than that.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

And since a majority of the members (since 58% of the rooms are at SSR, AKV and BLT) who own at WDW bought after SSR was a reality, most members really have no excuse to complain that SSR is too large or too far from parks. The size and location were apparent before they purchased.

All of which makes me feel that DVC does not have to do anything to "fix this problem." Each member can fix the problem on their own by booking in their home resort period or travelling at a slow DVC time and bookign when the 7 month window opens. -- Suzanne

 

[Lady V]

You are playing by the rules. I have no issues with SSR owners who use their points at other resorts. The system has rules and if you play by the rules then why would others be upset. Our family really wanted to stay at VWL so we bought there. I did not want to book at 11 months and then try to switch at 7 months. The DVC is not set up for last minute ressies. Planning out ahead is key.

Please give me a minute to put on my asbestos suit to protect me from the flamers who cannot plan ahead due to "insert excuse here". If you cannot plan out ahead then DVC is probably not the right product for you.

Thank you! and guess what I just did??? I just booked Bay Lake Tower at 7 months out for February for 8 nights!!! So excited!!!!

 

[Mississippian]

They are not displacing members, members who own at the resort should book it in the home resort priority window. That is the purpose of the window, and has been since day 1 of DVC. This was planned even before there were any other DVC resorts other than "The Disney Vacation Club Resort" (now OKW). It was in our paperwork even then. The system is working exactly as it was designed to work, sorry if some members expected anything more than that.

Yes, but be aware that prior to DVC messing up the system with SSR, there were lots of rooms available at the walking-distance resorts within the 7-month windown, and no matter which resort you got, you got a winner. If you got "stuck" with OKW, well at least you got great big units for really cheap prices to make up for the non-theme-park location.

DVC could add 5,000 Motel 6 units to the system and tell them they couldn't book at the other resorts until the 7-month window. Their addition would still make the memberships of those who already own less enjoyable. Yes, the current owners COULD still book prior to the 7-month window, but the 5,000 Motel 6 owners would still cause them to lose something, since any current DVC owner wishing to book within the 7-month window would almost certainly be forced to stay at the Motel 6. Of course, that's exactly what has happened with SSR. No, SSR isn't as low as a Motel 6, but it isn't up to the standards of the other resorts, either (or it doesn't offer the low rates and giant rooms of OKW to compensate).

 

[DVCJones]

I can't ever remember seeing a post from a non-SSR owner saying they wanted to get into SSR at 7 months. I frequently see posts where people own SSR and plan to move at 7 months.

I don't think it is because non-SSR owners have no interest in staying there. I think it is because SSR is so large that most people who are interested in staying there can and do get their reservation at 7 months. There is no need to complain when you get what you want.

Just for the record. I am an SSR owner and I SSR. I have only stayed there once, because I like variety. If I owned at another resort, I would still like variety. Thus far, I have not stayed at any resort more than once. I like them all and plan to use them all during the life of my membership. I think a lot of DVC members like variety. That is what made it so appealing to me and my family.

I don't think it is and SSR issue rather a issue of more members in general. More members who like variety and want to try all the resorts.

As an SSR owner I am psyched that I can get my home resort whenever I want it.

When we go next April I plan on switching my reservation at 7months.

When I go next July for two weeks. We will be doing a cruise then I will stay at SSR because I love the main pool and the Grandstand splash area for my kids. We plan on doing a lot of swimming. I also plan on taking advantage of the spa and the restaurants. I am not worried I won't be able to get SSR during this time.

I love that I can choose a resort according to my vacation plans.

 

[DVCGeek]

I can't help but think that if the 'problem' for DVC to 'fix' is not having enough rooms within walking distance of a park (allegedly because SSR created so many rooms that weren't), isn't BLT already a step toward fixing that and starting to restore balance?

 

[tjkraz]

You are missing the point. If there are 600 people who want to stay at BCV, BWV, and SSR then the demand is does not match the supply. If there are 82 people that want to stay at VWL then 600 need to want to stay at SSR and only 128 people can stay at BCV. With the resorts having different amounts of supply they cannot have equal damand and keep the system in balance. If there are 600 people that want to stay at each resort then each resort needs to have 600 rooms. The issue is that 600 people want to stay at BCV and there is only 181 rooms, so 419 people did not get what they want.

In other words.... SSR is too big for the demand.

I'm not missing the point at all. In fact, none of my posts have directly addressed that particular issue.

What I disagree with is any blanket proclamation that BWV, BCV, et al are "more popular" simply because those resorts tend to be fully booked before the likes of OKW and SSR. SSR has nearly 4 times the capacity of BCV so with all other things being equal, of course BCV is going to fill-up first. Same with BWV, VWL and all other smaller resorts.

Is SSR right-sized based upon current demand trends? No...at least not for many times of the year. But that is about the only conclusion we can draw from the data available because there are too many inconsistencies between the properties. Yet the term "popularity" keeps coming up in this and similar discussions with posters taking it upon themselves to decide what the masses like or dislike.

From 1991 to 1995, 100% of DVC villas were condo-style developments. From 1996 to 2000, 60% of the villas were condo-style, not-attached-to-a-theme-park units. This isn't exactly a new phenomenon for DVC.

You're right--there aren't 5x as many people booking SSR as BCV. But there may very well be 3-4 times as many people with a preference for SSR. Let's not lose sight of the fact that for many, "location, location, location" isn't the be-all, end-all of their Disney vacation planning.

 

[gkrykewy]

Is SSR right-sized based upon current demand trends? No...at least not for many times of the year.

That is the point of the thread.

Is it really the word "popular" that you object to? Perhaps a mod can do a find and replace, replacing "popular" with "right-sized" and we can have an interesting discussion in here

 

[tjkraz]

That is the point of the thread.

Perhaps it was at the start but at least a half-dozen pages ago it degraded into yet another "location, location, location--everyone goes to Disney for the parks" generalizations.

As for the question of "what can we do about it", I can think of two things:

1. Book home resorts 11 months out.
2. Hope that DVC's future developments balance the system to a greater degree.

Disney isn't going to build any additional amenities at SSR. (Not sure what they would build anyway.) And they can't lower the point charts.

Honestly, seeking any sort of balance is purely a pipe dream. Disney built SSR as large as it did for financial reasons. Nearly all of the buildings are replacements for units that were present prior to 2002. The land was ready and available. Disney decision-makers aren't going to lose any sleep over the fact that members calling 2 months out cannot regularly book BCV or BWV.

I'm repeating myself again but Disney's biggest mistake was building BCV and VWL as small as they did. If those two locations were in the 300-500 room range, we may not be having this discussion now. Suggesting that DVC should have built 3 or 4 separate resorts totaling 1200 rooms instead of making SSR that large is simply not realistic. The mistake is spending 3 years building a 200-unit resort that sells-out in 12-18 months.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

And since a majority of the members (since 58% of the rooms are at SSR, AKV and BLT) who own at WDW bought after SSR was a reality, most members really have no excuse to complain that SSR is too large or too far from parks. The size and location were apparent before they purchased.

All of which makes me feel that DVC does not have to do anything to "fix this problem." Each member can fix the problem on their own by booking in their home resort period or travelling at a slow DVC time and bookign when the 7 month window opens. -- Suzanne

Very nicely put.

 

[theww228]

They are not displacing members, members who own at the resort should book it in the home resort priority window. That is the purpose of the window, and has been since day 1 of DVC. This was planned even before there were any other DVC resorts other than "The Disney Vacation Club Resort" (now OKW). It was in our paperwork even then. The system is working exactly as it was designed to work, sorry if some members expected anything more than that.

I am still figuring out where I have said that members should not be allowed to switch after 7 months. If you read my posts you will see that I have no issue with members switching resorts and actually question why other member would be upset with members who follow the rules.

I am not upset with SSR owners. Period.

There are some members who are upset. I am trying to explain why they feel upset. BTW, I agree the members who are upset should follow the rules and book at their home resort before the 7 month widow and they will not have any issues.

Look at it this way:
100 people buy into a system where there is a bank of vehicles for them to drive each day.
There are the following vehicles:
55 sports cars with 2 seats
15 sedans
15 Minivans
15 15-passenger vans

When you sign up you pick the type of vehicle you want. If you leave in the morning before 8:00 you get the vehicle you signed up for, if it is after 8:00 it is first come first choice. If someone signed up for 15 passenger van and they come out at 8:30 and there is only sports cars and they have 6 six to haul around they will be upset. This isn't to say that a sports car is crap, it just doesn't meet the needs of that person. I don't see how you can blame the person who signed up for the sports car and takes a minivan after 8:00. They are playing by the rules .

I looked into DVC many times when they were selling only SSR. I told the guides that I didn't really care for SSR and it did not meet my needs. All of them told me the same thing, "That is okay, just buy there and switch out at 7 months, many members buy at SSR and never stay there." This is the same as saying go ahead and buy a membership for the sports car and just grab a minivan after 8:00. If every morning there are only sports cars sitting there, then the mix is not correct. If someone doesn't get a minivan, but they get a 15 passenger van instead they would bo okay with it because it still pretty much meets their needs. Maybe there should be 20 sports cars and 35 station wagons and that would allow people to find a comparable vehicle to the minivan.

It does force members to book in the 7-11 month period, when it was not as important in the past.

On the DVC Operations site there is a thread every couple of days that asks where to buy. Many give the suggestion to buy at SSR due to long expiration and low MF and switch out.

I always tell people buy where you want and book 7-11 months or plan or staying someplace where you might not like.