Benefits not the same if purchase a resale...is this true?

[dzorn]

This would not change where we would add on but would change if we add on in the future.

Our plans are to use it for WDW but like the options to trade when and if we need a change. We also have no plans to sell but falling resale prices would change how we view the value of our membership and if we would increase the number of points we have.

Denise in MI

 

[hmillerbarilla]

My thoughts exactly. We bought our contract this past spring through resale. Our membership card says 2004 though. We bought our points to use at WDW, but I still don't want to have those other options taken away. I'm watching this thread closely.

I agree and with the other PP about this. TSS usually posts quickly on threads like this.

Anyone?

 

[Mr_Potts]

I've only been a DVC member for 7 years, but certainly in that time I have not experienced anything like the turmoil since last Friday, first about the lack of availability for cruises and now about the potential differentiation between resale and direct purchasers. I'm sorry, but valet parking and the points reallocation were not big deals to me.

All of this sounds like a company in transition, and anyone who doesn't monitor the discussion boards would have little idea of what is going on. I don't think I've ever even read the word "resale" in an official Disney communication so maybe there will never be anything official sent to members about this.

I had been considering adding on at Aulani this week, but, hearing the stories of people who have been caught so completely off guard by these changes, for the first time I feel like I would be entering into a transaction with a timeshare company instead of the company founded by Walt Disney. And, yes, I do read all the fine print before signing at the mouse ears, but there has always been an expectation that DVC is composed of Disney's most loyal fans and this core base would aways be treated with the utmost respect.

I think someone needs to let Bob Iger and Bob Staggs know what is going on.

 

[wildernessDad]

I highly doubt that those who purchase a DVC membership through resale will not be given full benefits, that is, the benefits given to those who have purchased directly through Disney.

 

[tjkraz]

However, if DVC wanted to create a distinct marketing advantage, restricting DCL, ABD, and RCI doesn't seem like a very good approach.

Restricting DCL and ABD reduces those Disney companies' target markets, and provides little if any real benefit to the direct purchaser -- especially ABD, which is ridiculously expensive.

As the last week has shown us, DVC apparently has more points demand for cruises than it can absorb.

There has also been speculation over the years that the Concierge Collection was scaled back for similar reasons--DVC was using the reductions as a vehicle to limit the number of points it re-acquired and farmed out to CRO.

To you and I, the idea of buying DVC for use toward DCL, ABD, CC & RCI has always been pretty foreign. But if you consider the recent outcry over DCL availability limits and posts over the years from people looking at the "500 other destinations DVC can access" (RCI), it's clearly important to a segment of DVC's market.

Secondly, RCI transactions are exchanges. If fewer members offer their DVC points for exchanges, fewer RCI stays are available. So restricting the number of members who can offer DVC points would greatly reduce availability for those who purchase direct. Yeah, I know there would also be fewer DVC members competing for RCI exchanges, but the fact is that a pretty high percentage of RCI deposits never actually get exchanges...especially those made because someone missed the banking deadline. So the points going in far outweighs the number of competitors.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here--particularly the bolded part.

I don't see how a smaller number of RCI deposits hurts DVC or its members. Whether there are 10 members trying to trade through RCI or 1000 members, I don't see how it impacts an individual's chances for success. I put something in....I take something out.

In fact, a lower number of deposits would seem to increase DVC's trading power and--in theory--it would mean fewer DVC members competing for the same supply of RCI destinations.

DVC can create additional RCI availability by releasing more of their points inventory to RCI, but that's a double-edged sword. If they make it too easy to exchange in, why would someone not just buy an inexpensive timeshare and exchange into DVC? (That, incidentally, is exactly what some of our real timeshare experts do -- some of them don't even own DVC at all, and others only have token ownership to get the perks like AP discounts.)

If fewer DVC members have access to trade through RCI, that means fewer points deposited. In turn, fewer people would have success trading INTO DVC. So there's a sort of back-door purchase incentive there.

Also, I think IF they did make distinctions between direct and resale, they would grandfather current owners...if for no other reason, to avoid controversy, regulatory difficulties, and lawsuits.

Totally agree with you there. I'm not convinced that DVC can actually track ownership on contracts going back 20 years. And it's a logical move to make anyway.

 

[chalee94]

I agree and with the other PP about this. TSS usually posts quickly on threads like this.

Anyone?

i don't understand this expectation at all.

if DVC had a supersecret meeting that decided changes which were only communicated to the guides (and not MS), why would TSS be expected to know about it?

it doesn't make a ton of sense - dean has suggested much more plausible changes that would differentiate between direct benefits and resale benefits.

this just sounds like a sales weasel making things up...

 

[cseca]

...
To me, the more beneficial changes DVC could make to bolster the value of their direct sales would be some kind of VIP program that would offer enhanced booking advantages, better banking/borrowing options, better AP and cash stay discounts, etc.

...

Now THAT would be smart...

 

[palaemon]

To me, the more beneficial changes DVC could make to bolster the value of their direct sales would be some kind of VIP program that would offer enhanced booking advantages, better banking/borrowing options, better AP and cash stay discounts, etc.

I second that. I would literally buy into that.

 

[lark]

To you and I, the idea of buying DVC for use toward DCL, ABD, CC & RCI has always been pretty foreign. But if you consider the recent outcry over DCL availability limits and posts over the years from people looking at the "500 other destinations DVC can access" (RCI), it's clearly important to a segment of DVC's market.

Yeah -- that's the part that's most suprising about this to me. I always assumed the opportunities to use DVC points at non-DVC resorts was always mostly a marketing ploy. It's something you do so the guide has an answer to the question "what if we don't want to go to WDW every year?" But then when people actually look at value (hopefully for DVC after they have purchased), they see it's a horrible idea.

I still think, by and large, the number of points actually used for non-DVC resorts is very low. But this year was different. DCL is running only one ship from Florida for a large part of next year. And it's a new ship with a cool looking water roller coaster on it and demand and prices are simply off the charts, making the value of points for cruising seem a bit better.

But in the main, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. With apologies to our friends who sell resale, keeping DVC direct sales robust is far too important to us owners and if it means taking a bite out of resale prices it's ok. Also, it's a bit of a fine line for disney. If they take measures that drive resale prices lower without giving sufficient corresponding value to those who buy direct they are going to suffer even more, so there's a self-correcting pressure here.

Ultimately, those who get squeezed are the ones who own resale points they purchase specifically with the hope of using for non-DVC stays. I hope (and believe) there will be grandfathering for them unless that's too much of a computer and administrative hassle for MS. If not, that would kind of stink.

 

[tjkraz]

Now THAT would be smart...

I agree with Jim that adding perks for direct buyers would be popular...but think of the cost of extending those benefits to 150,000+ current members AND all of the future direct buyers. Every added benefit costs the company money.

This rumored take-away approach costs them nothing.

On at least two separate occasions DVC has surveyed members about adding an extra level of perks for those who own 1000+ points. That seems like a more realistic approach for doling out added perks because they would only be extended to a very small subset of owners.

 

[palaemon]

Instead of making 2 tiers of membership, I think they need better incentives. If they offered free APs for 5 or so years or free dining if you bought direct, I would definitely be considering that.

If they just gut resales, then I'll just pay less and just stay at WDW. Taking away perks like those aren't enough for me to buy direct.

 

[disneynutz]

Disney is in the business to make money, period. They will do what ever they have to do to make money, period.

All of the changes that Disney has made to the DVC in the last year or so, were made as part of their business plan, not some random act. They are very good at what they do and we have no idea what will come next or what their master plan is.

They nibble at making change, less objections that way. Sure some people will get upset, but others will defend the change because Disney tells us that the change is good for us or that they did it to keep our dues low. Soon another nibble, and another, until they accomplish their goals.

Creating an environment that increases direct sales and decreases resales make perfect business sense. Decreasing benefits to people who buy resale is an easy thing to do without increasing the cost to Disney. Sure some members may get upset and try to sell their memberships, but that is an acceptable loss.

I can hear the Guides now, "sure you can buy a contract from a private party and maybe save a little money, but you won't be able to use your points to vacation at any of the 4 million special family vacation destinations or to book a vacation on the Disney Cruise Line".

Seems like a perfect and successful plan to me.

Bill

 

[mouseaider]

This rumored take-away approach costs them nothing.

I disagree..... it could cost them a lot of business.

I just bought my first resale contract with the intent of using at BWV in 2011 and Aulani in 2012 for a special anniversary. Somebody has brought up that Aulani might be impossible to get at the 7 month mark. I know I can trade 160 points to stay in Hawaii. Had this been announced sooner, I would have just payed my cash for both trips.

 

[wdrl]

To me, the more beneficial changes DVC could make to bolster the value of their direct sales would be some kind of VIP program that would offer enhanced booking advantages, better banking/borrowing options, better AP and cash stay discounts, etc.

Perhaps that is exactly what is happening . Perhaps the "some kind of VIP program" to which you refer will say that directly purchased points can be used for exchanges with DCL, ABD, RCI, etc., while points bought from non-Disney sources cannot. And if someone has a lot of points obtained via the resale markets, then they can pay a fee to convert them to "VIP" status.

I wonder if the Disney resellers, like TSS, are alerting their customers to a possible change in the value of Disney points bought on the resale market? I suppose a reseller could take the stance that since nothing has officially changed, then there is nothing that has to be legally disclosed to buyers. But if I was in the market for buying a resale contract, I would definitely hold off buying until I had a better feel for what is happening.

Since my intent is to use my points at the DVC resorts, I won't be immediately affected if Disney limits exchanges to directly purchased points. Since I am more of a "buyer" than a "seller" at this stage in my DVC life, I might even benefit if resale prices plummet. If AKV points drop 50% from $80 to $40/point, I'd add on more because I'll use them at AKV.

We still have no official confirmation of anything. Everything is speculative at this point. I'm still speculating that this thread will hit 400 posts by Friday.

 

[Sandisw]

It just seems like this type of situation would cause a nightmare for DVC. How do you keep track of all the changes that happen on a daily basis with re-sales?

The only piece I could see to begin to happen is that new contracts bought direct from DVC come with some additional incentives or benefits that don't carry over from the original owner. But these would have to be more in the line of perks than functions of the program.

As mentioned previously, maybe giving those that buy direct a special DVC membership card that comes with additional discounts for dining, passes, etc.

So, if you buy from Disney, your membership card may be the "gold" standard but if you buy from someone else or without enough points, your DVC member card stays as the "blue" one.

Of course, this won't stop someone from adding on through resale as once you have your card, you would be all set, but it might bring in more first time buyers.

I don't know, it just seems more like an aggressive guide trying to convince a new buyer to go direct.

 

[Coach81]

Yeah, someone is pulling your chain..

 

[JimMIA]

As the last week has shown us, DVC apparently has more points demand for cruises than it can absorb.

There has also been speculation over the years that the Concierge Collection was scaled back for similar reasons--DVC was using the reductions as a vehicle to limit the number of points it re-acquired and farmed out to CRO.

Well, they say it is strictly a cruise availability problem. I suspect there is a DVC component as well. DVC has to pay DCL cash for the cruises, and if they are having trouble renting rooms due to the economic situation, they have to get the money from somewhere. I'm not entirely convinced that the timing of the "lack of availability" matching perfectly with Disney's fiscal year is a total coincidence!

To you and I, the idea of buying DVC for use toward DCL, ABD, CC & RCI has always been pretty foreign. But if you consider the recent outcry over DCL availability limits and posts over the years from people looking at the "500 other destinations DVC can access" (RCI), it's clearly important to a segment of DVC's market.

Yep, but we both know that with 'outcrys' the relationship between decible level and numbers of people affected is not always 1:1. The people most affected are the ones most inclined to keep the thread going.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here--particularly the bolded part.

I don't see how a smaller number of RCI deposits hurts DVC or its members. Whether there are 10 members trying to trade through RCI or 1000 members, I don't see how it impacts an individual's chances for success. I put something in....I take something out.

In fact, a lower number of deposits would seem to increase DVC's trading power and--in theory--it would mean fewer DVC members competing for the same supply of RCI destinations.

Not all the points deposited are, in fact, used in exchanges. Sometimes people deposit and then can't get what they want when they want it, and the points go unused and expire. That is particularly common, I suspect, when the deposits are made because the DVC owner missed their banking deadline and had no other option but to lose the points. To the degree that you reduce that kind of breakage, you will reduce the availability for other owners trying to exchange out.

 

[cseca]

I agree with Jim that adding perks for direct buyers would be popular...but think of the cost of extending those benefits to 150,000+ current members AND all of the future direct buyers. Every added benefit costs the company money.

This rumored take-away approach costs them nothing.

On at least two separate occasions DVC has surveyed members about adding an extra level of perks for those who own 1000+ points. That seems like a more realistic approach for doling out added perks because they would only be extended to a very small subset of owners.

I agree that it would cost them money, but the take away approach might not cost them $ now but it will down the line.
I think most members would probably rethink possible add-ons knowing that if they need to sell for whatever reason they most probably won't get a reasonable price back.

And that would just drive the point home that you buy where you want to stay. People who wants to mainly stay at 11 DVC property would rather purchase resale for A LOT cheaper than direct. Unless DVC plans to scoop up all cheap resale points to sell for double the price.

I guess if I had known about this change, I would purchase most of my points resale for a huge discount than purchasing direct from disney.
Because:
1. We mainly use on DVC property (ok, we've been members for 10 years and only have 1 occassion to use points outside of DVC... at Paradise Pier).
2. Chances of getting reasonable price for resale is better when you buy resale in the first place.

Originally Posted by disneynutz
...
I can hear the Guides now, "sure you can buy a contract from a private party and maybe save a little money, but you won't be able to use your points to vacation at any of the 4 million special family vacation destinations or to book a vacation on the Disney Cruise Line".
Seems like a perfect and successful plan to me.

yep... good for THEM... not good for us.

 

[JimMIA]

I agree with Jim that adding perks for direct buyers would be popular...but think of the cost of extending those benefits to 150,000+ current members AND all of the future direct buyers. Every added benefit costs the company money.

This rumored take-away approach costs them nothing.

On at least two separate occasions DVC has surveyed members about adding an extra level of perks for those who own 1000+ points. That seems like a more realistic approach for doling out added perks because they would only be extended to a very small subset of owners.

Oh, I don't think anyone would expect DVC to grandfather all existing owners into a new VIP program. When I talk about grandfathering, I'm saying I don't think they would take away benefits from longtime members who happened to buy resale. Or folks like us, who bought first resale and later direct -- what do you do with us? And there are a LOT OF US!

The kind of program I envision would be for direct purchasers from X date forward only, possibly with tiers for level of points purchased direct -- the more you buy/own, the more benefits you get. Buy 1000+ points, you get $200 off APs for five years, etc.

They could also offer the option for existing owners to buy into the VIP program -- new source of revenue, existing owners have no gripes. Wyndham has such a plan that existing owners, including resale buyers, can buy into for $2,395 (I think).

 

[gkrykewy]

Had this been announced sooner, I would have just payed my cash for both trips.

So someone else would have bought your BWV points, and Disney would have your cash. Sounds like a win-win to me.