Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[Patmcpsu]

I think DVC would be caught in “no man’s land” if they lowered dues to $9 but raised points to 1BR level, especially given they have to sell and fill several hundred units.

Using round numbers, CFW is currently $12/pt, but if they used $9/pt instead, a cabin around peak season would go from the current 24 points to 32 points (a 33 percent increase). For comparison, a 1BR at CCV at the same time would cost 37 points. CFW would land about halfway between a studio and a 1BR (as I think it should be).

 

[zavandor]

Using round numbers, CFW is currently $12/pt, but if they used $9/pt instead, a cabin around peak season would go from the current 24 points to 32 points (a 33 percent increase). For comparison, a 1BR at CCV at the same time would cost 37 points. CFW would land about halfway between a studio and a 1BR (as I think it should be).

That's a very bad idea.

Following your example, in peak season currently MF for one night are 12x24 = 288.
If they had increased the point per night it would be 9x32= 288.
Which means, that a person who buys to stay at the cabins would still pay $288 per night, but now they have to buy more points upfront, increasing their cost.
The only reason to buy CFW is to stay there and have home resort booking. It's not a resort for SAP. And if one buys to stay there, fewer points per night and higher MF are better than the opposite.

We can say that the problem with CFW is that the MF needed per night are too high, but that's built in the product, no way around that: they are individual units and have 6 beds, which means higher maintenance and cleaning costs. Also they have an internal bus loop, which means higher transportation fees.

Actually, we all gain from the current situation.
Owners who want 11 months booking can buy fewer points. The cheap point charts make people booking at 7 months happy. Disney cannot sell them so there will always be more points declared than sold, helping the whole DVC system (absorbing SAP and freeing competition at 7 months).

All win!

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

Using round numbers, CFW is currently $12/pt, but if they used $9/pt instead, a cabin around peak season would go from the current 24 points to 32 points (a 33 percent increase). For comparison, a 1BR at CCV at the same time would cost 37 points. CFW would land about halfway between a studio and a 1BR (as I think it should be).

Except it’s like 30% smaller than the already small CCV 1BR, doesn’t have washer/dryer or bath tub, has arguably the worst feature pool of any DVC, has one QS restaurant and that’s it (unless you count HDDR) … I could go on …

 

[Cfabar1]

I suspect DVC had the cabins forced upon them. In the same way DCL had the Disney Adventure forced upon them. It was a way to offload the replacement cost of the new units and hide it in my view. If this becomes a major issue at some point, it will be fascinating to see what emails or conversations around this product entering the DVC portfolio happened…

I also imagine that, as many have pointed out, the issues with the cabins go way beyond price. They include:
- Competition with flagship-esque resorts such as Riviera and Polynesian for that initial buy-in. Both of these are two of the most attractive DVC properties in the entire portfolio.
- Lack of deluxe style amenities and lack of a deluxe style location….
- Only one room type so families that might have varying needs or anticipate their needs changing over time have no 11 month advantage to owning at that resort
- High annual dues

While the trust thing turns me off, I doubt most buyers even reach that point of the discussion with them. It is so in the weeds, and I doubt the guides explain it unless absolutely necessary - and even then, I wonder if they really fully understand it themselves.

Right now the Cabins are selling for about the same cost per point for existing owners as the VGF Fire Sale at 150 points a few years ago…. Maybe a little more, but not much ($161 for VGF vs $167 for CFW by my count). I suspect that the cabins would need to be priced much lower to start meaningfully moving the product…

I do think it will be combined with LSL out of necessity/desperation.

Opening CFW as a DVC resort is probably the worst decision for a new DVC property they ever made. Only HHI and VB I can even think of as distant seconds….

Devil’s Advocate/Counter-opinion - our friend @Brian Noble has a great saying that “timeshares are sold not bought” Perhaps The reason why CFW is not doing well is because Disney, other than a couple of posters and Chip & Dale buttons, has not emphasized the idea of purchasing CFW and instead has heavily marketed the other actively selling properties. I would believe that more prior to the recent incentives which are pushing the Cabins. Maybe sales will uptick now that pricing has been revised downward for the cabins.

 

[zavandor]

Except it’s like 30% smaller than the already small CCV 1BR, doesn’t have washer/dryer or bath tub, has arguably the worst feature pool of any DVC, has one QS restaurant and that’s it (unless you count HDDR) … I could go on …

CFW should not be compared to 1BR.

Cabins are the only unit type costing in the Studio range to sleep 6.
They are the largest unit type costing in the Studio range in the whole DVC system, by far.
They are the only unit costing in the Studio range to have the privacy and quietness of not having neighbours on any side or above them.
They are the only unit type costing in the studio range to have a full kitchen.
They are the only unit type costing in the Studio range to have the option to close a door between two sleeping areas.

Cabins are units costing in the Studio range that have some of the advantages of other unit types that cost 2 to 4 times as many points.
They are Super Studios, not Lacking 1BR.

Do those advantages balance the disadvantages (high MF per night, convoluted transportation, horrible trust contract)?
Given that they are not selling well, the answer is that for many they don't.

 

[CarolynFH]

has arguably the worst feature pool of any DVC,

The new pool going in next to the FW Meadow Pool might resolve that problem.

 

[Patmcpsu]

The only reason to buy CFW is to stay there and have home resort booking. It's not a resort for SAP. And if one buys to stay there, fewer points per night and higher MF are better than the opposite.

This is a bit of circular reasoning. Yes, if you commit to $12/pt annual fees, it is specifically to access the awesome points chart at 11 months. Buying a CFW and staying elsewhere makes no sense because you're using expensive points at somewhere with an expensive points chart. If CFW had fees and a points chart that was in alignment with the rest of DVC, that effect would go out the window.

I also used to believe that CFW is a flawed product that nobody wants to use. But the fact that people clamor over it at 7 months suggests that there's interest. Maybe it's novelty of a new resort, or maybe it's the awesome points chart. People may not want to buy at CFW, but they certainly want to stay there.

But anyway, I don't want to hijack the LSL thread with CFW stuff. I just hope DVC doesn't repeat the same mistake.

 

[zavandor]

But anyway, I don't want to hijack the LSL thread with CFW stuff. I just hope DVC doesn't repeat the same mistake.

But the mistake is only for themselves, because they're not selling well.
For owners, both potential CFW purchasers and other owners in the DVC system, they bring only positives (as long they don't end in breakage).
I wish DVC makes more similar mistakes in the future!

CFW are a super niche product, they're only for people who want to stay repeatedly at the Fort during a high demand season (Halloween or Christmas) and buy a guaranteed week.
That's why they're not selling. But no harm to us if they don't sell well. We should rejoice the existence of CFW!

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

They are Super Studios, not Lacking 1BR.

But the whole discussion upthread was about raising the nightly point costs to create lower annual dues. Raising per night point costs does put them in 1BR range, which is a losing proposition. I think Disney chose wisely to keep per night point costs low and MFs high.

It’s a nice part of the portfolio to sleep around at, not a good place to own IMO.

 

[Tatebeck]

For owners, both potential CFW purchasers and other owners in the DVC system, they bring only positives

I would disagree with this. It does have negatives for CFW buyers, and more positives for others trading in at 7 months.

I feel the way they have made it makes it more appealing to DVC owners who own at other resorts and less appealing/useful for members who actually own at the cabins. Which is why they are selling so poorly, because it is a bad deal for CFW buyers unless they ONLY want to stay at CFW. Might as well wait for resale contracts if that is what you want. They are locked into CFW unless they pay a premium in both dues AND points

Trading out of CFW is just a bad deal. The other resorts are mostly higher point charts, but lower dues. Using CFW points anywhere else makes them use a higher point chart and still have to pay the highest dues. Trading out from other resorts to CFW is a much better deal because they get to keep the lower dues that they pay and still get the low point charts of CFW.


Unless they bundle it with Lakeshore Lodge (which I think business wise they should, but as a member interested in LL but not really CFW I hope they don't) I think it was a big mistake on DVC's end and they may never be able to sell them out. And IDK if there is enough cash interest to keep them rented long term.

Looking back at it, if I were in charge of DVC, I would have:

• Slightly raised the point chart accordingly to make the cabins more expensive than other studios but still less than the 1BRs at other resorts and making the dues just barely the most expensive in WDW (high $9, low $10 range) Which makes sense to me because it holds more guests than any studio (and 1BR even), has slightly more amenities than any studio, but less amenities than a 1BR
• Lowered the base price (or increase incentives) to make the overall price stay around the same as it is now to purchase the number of points for the same stay.
• Same total initial cost, you get more points, with lower dues resulting in no change in how a CFW buyer uses their points at CFW. Only in how they are swapped out.
  • These changes make the resort more palatable to a normal buyer, and an entry point at a slightly lower per point cost than say RIV or Poly. They would be able to use their points at another resort with less of a trade off and working better within the larger system

 

[zavandor]

I would disagree with this.
I feel the way they have made it makes it more appealing to DVC owners who own at other resorts and less appealing/useful for members who actually own at the cabins. Which is why they are selling so poorly, because it is a bad deal for CFW buyers unless they ONLY want to stay at CFW. Might as well wait for resale contracts if that is what you want. They are locked into CFW unless they pay a premium in both dues AND points

Trading out of CFW is just a bad deal. The other resorts are mostly higher point charts, but lower dues. Using CFW points anywhere else makes them use a higher point chart and still have to pay the highest dues. Trading out from other resorts to CFW is a much better deal because they get to keep the lower dues that they pay and still get the low point charts of CFW.


Unless they bundle it with Lakeshore Lodge (which I think business wise they should, but as a member interested in LL but not really CFW I hope they don't) I think it was a big mistake on DVC's end and they may never be able to sell them out. And IDK if there is enough cash interest to keep them rented long term.

Looking back at it, if I were in charge of DVC, I would have:

• Slightly raised the point chart accordingly to make the cabins more expensive than other studios but still less than the 1BRs at other resorts and making the dues just barely the most expensive in WDW (high $9, low $10 range) Which makes sense to me because it holds more guests than any studio (and 1BR even), has slightly more amenities than any studio, but less amenities than a 1BR
• Lowered the base price (or increase incentives) to make the overall price stay around the same as it is now to purchase the number of points for the same stay.
• Same total initial cost, you get more points, with lower dues resulting in no change in how a CFW buyer uses their points at CFW. Only in how they are swapped out.
  • These changes make the resort more palatable to a normal buyer, and an entry point at a slightly lower per point cost than say RIV or Poly. They would be able to use their points at another resort with less of a trade off and working better within the larger system

Waiting for resale might be a good strategy, but personally I wouldn't buy a restricted resort in any case, because of the risk of losing points. While using points elsewhere is not convenient, it's still better than losing them in case of an emergency.
And finding a guaranteed week resale is very very difficult.

You wrote "if I were DVC", but my point of view is as an owner. And as an owner who would stay the resort most of the time I would never prefer a higher point chart.

I also think DVC realised a high point chart would have made the resort even more difficult to sell, I do not think they didn't realised the MF were $12 before opening sales. It must have been a conscious choice.

 

[Tatebeck]

Waiting for resale might be a good strategy, but personally I wouldn't buy a restricted resort in any case, because of the risk of losing points. While using points elsewhere is not convenient, it's still better than losing them in case of an emergency.
And finding a guaranteed week resale is very very difficult.

You wrote "if I were DVC", but my point of view is as an owner. And as an owner who would stay the resort most of the time I would never prefer a higher point chart.

I also think DVC realised a high point chart would have made the resort even more difficult to sell, I do not think they didn't realised the MF were $12 before opening sales. It must have been a conscious choice.

In a way I am also speaking of how I would feel if I were a CFW owner or an interested buyer. The buyer simply has no power to choose how the point chart/maintenance fees shake out so that is why I had to put "If I were DVC" even if the outcome IMO would work out better both for DVC and CFW buyers. The only negative would be to owners of other resorts trying to trade into CFW at 7 months.

You are saying you would NEVER prefer a higher point chart? Even if they made price per point lower so you were able to buy more points at the same total cost, stay at CFW at the same total cost, and get lowered maintenance fees so that a trade out to other resorts get a better exchange rate? That is just silly. There would be no negative as a CFW buyer, only positives

 

[Tatebeck]

Bringing it back to LSL, it is definitely possible that they have a plan for CFW, such as combining it with a massive resort like LSL to reduce maintenance fees. It would make me less likely to buy LL though, because that would drive up the dues. But I would still want to swap in to try it at 7 months at some point.

It is also possible that DVC was given CFW and told to make it work, so they could have made the imbalance on purpose.

(Conspiracy theory time)
Perhaps they have seen the 7 month swap inventory at the other resorts get harder to book, making them and their DVC direct product look bad. So they put these cabins out there with a very low point chart specifically to lure members at other resorts to swap in at 7 months, which would help open up general 7 month availability a bit in the entire system.

Better swapping makes direct points look better, especially once more resorts expire and resale restrictions apply to more and more resorts as time goes on.

They may not be trying to sell CFW at all really. Just let a few members who want guaranteed weeks buy in and let the rest swap their points and sell reservations for cash. If cash isn't selling, declare more for DVC to swap into. Just another possibility

 

[GADisneyDad14]

It is also possible that DVC was given CFW and told to make it work, so they could have made the imbalance on purpose.

My personal opinion (which of course could be wrong), I think Disney is content to run CFW as a DVC/cash reservation hybrid and "success" in their eyes may not necessarily be viewed through the usual lens of point sales.

 

[zavandor]

In a way I am also speaking of how I would feel if I were a CFW owner or an interested buyer. The buyer simply has no power to choose how the point chart/maintenance fees shake out so that is why I had to put "If I were DVC" even if the outcome IMO would work out better both for DVC and CFW buyers. The only negative would be to owners of other resorts trying to trade into CFW at 7 months.

You are saying you would NEVER prefer a higher point chart? Even if they made price per point lower so you were able to buy more points at the same total cost, stay at CFW at the same total cost, and get lowered maintenance fees so that a trade out to other resorts get a better exchange rate? That is just silly. There would be no negative as a CFW buyer, only positives

I just believe DVC would never lower the price per point. They have taken a moderate resort and called it Deluxe so that they could sell it in line with the others. They do not want to sell a moderate DVC at moderate prices. Should be pretty clear by now.

 

[Tatebeck]

I just believe DVC would never lower the price per point. They have taken a moderate resort and called it Deluxe so that they could sell it in line with the others. They do not want to sell a moderate DVC at moderate prices. Should be pretty clear by now.

I still don't think you get it.

Lower price per point but more points = the same $ for DVC. They wouldn't really be selling anything for less. Just making the points swap differently.

Even if they don't want the advertised starting price per point of CFW to look lower than the other resorts (which they could, the WDW starting prices are lower than VDH for example) then they could have just made the incentive offers for CFW significantly cheaper than the other resorts (which they are already doing, it is lower per point after incentives for CFW than RIV or Poly, they would just need to discount it a bit more if they lowered the dues costs and increased the point charts)

The only real downsides I can see for DVC from this would be more members buying the cheapest direct points to get member benefits, so more members with benefits, and more points that would be eligible to trade into all the other resorts, which it is possible that they didn't want members from the moderate-adjacent CFW cabins to trade into their other, more deluxe resorts.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Havent read all the posts thoroughly. DVC isn't going to lower the base price per point. If they want to move the needle on sales they can just give bigger incentives. I believe that even if the points to stay at CFW were lower it wouldn't increase sales by all that much if at all. Lowering dues would move the needle some on sales. In the end, restrictions paired with a very niche product is just making this a hard one to sell. (also they are not trying very hard to sell them from what I have seen said by some that are actually interested in buying)

 

[zavandor]

I still don't think you get it.

Lower price per point but more points = the same $ for DVC. They wouldn't really be selling anything for less. Just making the points swap differently.

Even if they don't want the advertised starting price per point of CFW to look lower than the other resorts (which they could, the WDW starting prices are lower than VDH for example) then they could have just made the incentive offers for CFW significantly cheaper than the other resorts (which they are already doing, it is lower per point after incentives for CFW than RIV or Poly, they would just need to discount it a bit more if they lowered the dues costs and increased the point charts)

The only real downsides I can see for DVC from this would be more members buying the cheapest direct points to get member benefits, so more members with benefits, and more points that would be eligible to trade into all the other resorts, which it is possible that they didn't want members from the moderate-adjacent CFW cabins to trade into their other, more deluxe resorts.

They don't want to sell cheaper points because those points exchange 1:1 in the system. They won't do it. They spruced the dining options at the fort and are building a new pool to justify calling them deluxe.

I am saying that if the price is a constant, then it's better a cheap point chart and higher MF than the opposite.
You are saying that the price could be lower to have a higher point chart, lower MF and being able to buy more points (that can be exchanged 1:1 with other resorts) with the same buy in.
I say that is not going to happen.

Do I get it?

 

[Tatebeck]

They don't want to sell cheaper points because those points exchange 1:1 in the system. They won't do it. They spruced the dining options at the fort and are building a new pool to justify calling them deluxe.

I am saying that if the price is a constant, then it's better a cheap point chart and higher MF than the opposite.
You are saying that the price could be lower to have a higher point chart, lower MF and being able to buy more points (that can be exchanged 1:1 with other resorts) with the same buy in.
I say that is not going to happen.

Do I get it?

Close enough now I suppose. I think you mostly understand what I would have done, but not really why it would be good or bad

With low point chart and high MFs, the question is better for whom?
Better for CFW buyers, no. Definitely not. Better for everyone else? For sure.
But making something worse for someone and then expecting them to still buy it? That's a very tough sell

I wasn't saying take it and completely flip everything to make it a low MF high point chart resort, just to make it more realistic and bearable when comparing to the other resorts. A happy medium

 

[zavandor]

Close enough now I suppose. I think you mostly understand what I would have done, but not really why it would be good or bad

With low point chart and high MFs, the question is better for whom?
Better for CFW buyers, no. Definitely not. Better for everyone else? For sure.
But making something worse for someone and then expecting them to still buy it? That's a very tough sell

I wasn't saying take it and completely flip everything to make it a low MF high point chart resort, just to make it more realistic and bearable when comparing to the other resorts. A happy medium

Cfw is so different from other resorts that it's less important being able to exchange.
For example, it might be an excellent resort for a family of 6. Would it be likely that they'd swap their weeks at WDW for 2 days in a 2BR somewhere else?
CFW is a resort to buy only if one wants to stay there most of the time (which is true of most direct resorts and 100% true for resale at restricted resorts). If one buys to stay there most of the times, than a low point chart and high maintenance fees are better than the opposite.
If you want to make CFW a good SAP resort, then I appreciate the wish, but I don't think it's realistic.