Blackout days for DVC Resales???

[Dean]

Of course there is some benefit.

1) Increased dollars spent on-site by resale members year after year, tickets, food, merchandise.

2) Potential future direct sales. You assume that no resale owner has ever purchased direct add-ons or new contracts at new DVC resorts.

3) Referrals. Happy DVC owners are their best advocate for generating new sales.

4) A reason for their captive DVC audience to keep returning to Disney for decades to come.

5) Cross-selling. DVC members are more likely to be open to purchase other Disney products, like cruises or travel experiences.

6) At any time they believe a resale buyer is getting TOO GOOD OF A DEAL. They have right of first refusal. They can take that resale away from the buyer. So, all this talk about how resale owners are some how hurting direct owners - blame DVD, they can buy up every single contract. Obviously they don't want to do that. It's a symbiotic relationship. They need resale customers to keep values high. Additional restrictions will decrease resale value thereby hurting direct purchasers the most.

If any direct purchasers are worried about their yearly vacation, then perhaps a fixed week option will provide them with the peace of mind they want. However, I would never opt for a fixed week, I would venture to guess that most people don't vacation that way.

To me all of those points are applicable to the current owner of a points contract and would not different significantly between a current or resale owner. The only exception is that a new owner might spend more than a longstanding owners ins some cases.

 

[Sammie]

Of course there is some benefit.

1) Increased dollars spent on-site by resale members year after year, tickets, food, merchandise.

2) Potential future direct sales. You assume that no resale owner has ever purchased direct add-ons or new contracts at new DVC resorts.

3) Referrals. Happy DVC owners are their best advocate for generating new sales.

4) A reason for their captive DVC audience to keep returning to Disney for decades to come.

5) Cross-selling. DVC members are more likely to be open to purchase other Disney products, like cruises or travel experiences.

6) At any time they believe a resale buyer is getting TOO GOOD OF A DEAL. They have right of first refusal. They can take that resale away from the buyer. So, all this talk about how resale owners are some how hurting direct owners - blame DVD, they can buy up every single contract. Obviously they don't want to do that. It's a symbiotic relationship. They need resale customers to keep values high. Additional restrictions will decrease resale value thereby hurting direct purchasers the most.

If any direct purchasers are worried about their yearly vacation, then perhaps a fixed week option will provide them with the peace of mind they want. However, I would never opt for a fixed week, I would venture to guess that most people don't vacation that way.

As Chuck stated DVC only profits from direct sales. They make no money off of anything else.

I would imagine most that buy resale would encourage others to so for the same reasons they bought resale to save money.

 

[brertoad]

As Chuck stated DVC only profits from direct sales. They make no money off of anything else.

I would imagine most that buy resale would encourage others to so for the same reasons they bought resale to save money.

Although many may not agree with my first point. I clearly understand that Disney parks and DVD are separate entities.

But, I would like to point out that families are generational. The money spent on ticket sales, merchandise, and food, on themselves, their children, their aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, siblings, etc. Any of that money spent on "non-DVC related" purchases can eventually translate into the other points I specified which are DVC related. Making memories in the parks goes hand in hand with making memories at the resorts.

Imagine a family with 5 children, when those children grow up on Disney and DVC, they will be more likely to purchase DVC. And yes, maybe the kids had 50 churros in their childhood and that makes them want the same for their children. And it would be very short-sighted to believe that all resale purchasers will only purchase resale contracts. Everyone must decide what is best for them. For example, some people rely on points to book cruises, therefore they would only consider direct purchase.

To anger any subset of DVC members is unwise, I understand it's a business, but any decision they make needs to be done responsibly. We all understand they must make a profit to continue to build new resorts. And I believe if they didn't make a profit, this timeshare would have bust a long time ago.

We seem to be just going around in circles here. I don't really have anything to add. We've all hashed it out pretty thoroughly. If money was growing on trees or we were all 1%-ers, I expect we'd all be direct owners. Unfortunately, we all do the best we can with what we have.

YMMV. (Your mileage may vary)

 

[myzel]

As Dean said,DVC/DVD had already profited from the point sales. Resale is not a profit or loss to them, unless someone is on a DVC waitlist to buy a sold out resort direct. If DVC had a waiitlist and exercises ROFR on "cheap" points to make a profit this is no different than you or I playing the stock market. I see it the same way, whoever ownes the points they are still points that DVC/DVD had already sold.

 

[DVCmom4]

I hope that the day never comes for all of you again resale where you need to sell your points for what ever reason!

The more DVC put restriction on the resales the less money you will get if the need arises! We got our DVC for someone who's wife past away and needed extra money to help with raising his young children. Was he wrong in selling or were we wrong for buying it?

My point is everyone has a story and a life to live! We all do our best!

 

[BestDadEver]

What? Whenever I come across one of your posts, BDE, I scratch my head. You always seem to end up saying well that's what I think and therefore I'm right according to my point of view.

While I don't always agree w Dean, I respect his knowledge and attempts to help.

Well then you usually missed my 3 previous posts where I explained myself. I also get agitated repeating things . Dean often comes off condescending towards me

 

[Sammie]

I think that many assume because one understands why DVC might possibly do this, that we are for it, not sure anyone stated that were for it or against. I know I didn't. Or for that matter stated whether their points were direct, resale or both.

I simply understand where they are coming from and the bottom line is they will do what they feel is best for them financially.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

...... we all need to realize that DVC has to stay solvent and to do that they have to sell direct. There is no benefit to them in resale.

Do they? Shouldn't DVC be able to remain solvent and continue operating existing resorts even if they never open another one? And I'm referring beyond what's best for the membership - ie, additional options - or the employment that would be lost from not having development and sales - but income from sales does not go towards the operation of the resorts.

 

[twinsouvenirs]

i am going to speak with my QA person about this before i send in my contract for GFV today and see if I can get some clarification--in my 'read' of the MPOS I don't see anything that would allow that. If they did that, it would seriously compromise my willingness to purchase.

 

[Dean]

Well then you usually missed my 3 previous posts where I explained myself. I also get agitated repeating things .

I went back and reviewed your posts in this thread, I do not see an explanation at all, only a vague statement that you feel more resorts makes the 7 month window even worse. I also got the impression that you felt resale restrictions would also make the 7 month window worse. I'd love to know why you think this. My interpretation is that it depends on the size and OVERALL demand of a given resort. Demand determines how likely the membership as a whole enters into the 7 month window and size determines the amount of the impact. IF they could increase the demand of SSR enough that a significant population of prospective members wanted to buy say GF to stay at SSR, it'd instantly solve the 7 month window for the other resorts. Not to pick on SSR, just to realize it is the biggest impact on the 7 month window all by itself.

Dean often comes off condescending towards me

That's not my intent, I think it's just that our perspectives are so different. Your posts often come across as sarcastic and snippy, esp toward me, hopefully that's not intentional either but it's hard not to think so when you wisecrack without any real input.

 

[Dean]

i am going to speak with my QA person about this before i send in my contract for GFV today and see if I can get some clarification--in my 'read' of the MPOS I don't see anything that would allow that. If they did that, it would seriously compromise my willingness to purchase.

Realize 2 things. That QA doesn't have any more insight or control than you or I and that what's written is the answer no matter what you're told. If you want to explore it further, Legal is the people you should talk to. See if you can get it in writing if it's that important to you, just realize they may not be willing to provide promises in writing.

 

[gray52]

I went back and reviewed your posts in this thread, I do not see an explanation at all, only a vague statement that you feel more resorts makes the 7 month window even worse. I also got the impression that you felt resale restrictions would also make the 7 month window worse. I'd love to know why you think this. My interpretation is that it depends on the size and OVERALL demand of a given resort. Demand determines how likely the membership as a whole enters into the 7 month window and size determines the amount of the impact. IF they could increase the demand of SSR enough that a significant population of prospective members wanted to buy say GF to stay at SSR, it'd instantly solve the 7 month window for the other resorts. Not to pick on SSR, just to realize it is the biggest impact on the 7 month window all by itself.

X2

The question was why you think there "needs to be REAL DIFFERENCES" between resale and direct?

 

[crisi]

I went back and reviewed your posts in this thread, I do not see an explanation at all, only a vague statement that you feel more resorts makes the 7 month window even worse. I also got the impression that you felt resale restrictions would also make the 7 month window worse. I'd love to know why you think this. My interpretation is that it depends on the size and OVERALL demand of a given resort. Demand determines how likely the membership as a whole enters into the 7 month window and size determines the amount of the impact. IF they could increase the demand of SSR enough that a significant population of prospective members wanted to buy say GF to stay at SSR, it'd instantly solve the 7 month window for the other resorts. Not to pick on SSR, just to realize it is the biggest impact on the 7 month window all by itself.

That's not my intent, I think it's just that our perspectives are so different. Your posts often come across as sarcastic and snippy, esp toward me, hopefully that's not intentional either but it's hard not to think so when you wisecrack without any real input.

I think that even when resorts are objectively appealing and generate demand, that as human beings we develop an attachment to what is ours. So anytime Disney develops resorts that are much larger or much smaller than the "average" size, they put things out of balance. But they've pretty much proven they don't care about balance in the system. They aren't interested in the supply/demand for non-home resorts.

 

[Chuck S]

Just want to step in here as a Moderator and remind everyone that since everything we see on these boards is typed, we do not have the benefit of verbal inflections. It is easy to read something and not take it in the way it was intended by the poster and without the verbal inflections, it is best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks.

You may now return to the discussion at hand.

 

[gray52]

My opinion is that for a number of companies under the a disney umbrella, it would be irresponsible to completely disregard what DVC members think about the product they were sold by DISNEY... because, for the vast majority of purchasers, that's who sold them the membership, even though we know that legally, that's not the case. How many cash resorts has Disney built lately? Obviously, the demand is there because they keep building DVC. While they're separate entities, they all represent The Mouse in the minds of buyers. In my opinion... It's critical to the WDW business model to have happy DVC members. Maybe the Disney accountants tell them they don't need to have happy resale buyers? But i'd guess if the decision is made to impose more restrictions, more than just DVD accountants had a hand in that desicion.

Also... If the points are selling as well as they claim, why have a large group of owners out there bad mouthing your product (resale buyers and those who want to sell when their resale value sink)... When you have almost no negative owners currently?

 

[disneynutz]

My opinion is that for a number of companies under the a disney umbrella, it would be irresponsible to completely disregard what DVC members think about the product they were sold by DISNEY... because, for the vast majority of purchasers, that's who sold them the membership, even though we know that legally, that's not the case. How many cash resorts has Disney built lately? Obviously, the demand is there because they keep building DVC. While they're separate entities, they all represent The Mouse in the minds of buyers. In my opinion... It's critical to the WDW business model to have happy DVC members. Maybe the Disney accountants tell them they don't need to have happy resale buyers? But i'd guess if the decision is made to impose more restrictions, more than just DVD accountants had a hand in that desicion.

Also... If the points are selling as well as they claim, why have a large group of owners out there bad mouthing your product (resale buyers and those who want to sell when their resale value sink)... When you have almost no negative owners currently?

I thought that years ago, not anymore. DVC has taught me how Disney really feels about their guests. Year after year DVC made changes to the rules and policies that benefited Disney. Problems and issues have been identified over and over and very little has been done to improve things.

DVC owners pay for everything and DVC takes the credit as if they are footing the bill. Owners have virtually no say in how their money is spent and we have given DVC free rain to make decisions for us.

DVC has a very small ownership base, 200,000 memberships, WD Parks and Resorts had 126,479,000 visitors last year. Based on the numbers and their actions, I don't think that Disney is worried about what DVC owners think.

Bill

 

[tjkraz]

How many cash resorts has Disney built lately?

I assume that was intended as hyperbole, but in reality Art of Animation and Pop Century both opened within the last 10 years and have more rooms than all of DVC combined.

Additionally, every time they build a new DVC resort and sell points, they are creating capacity at the cash resorts. (A new DVC owner has less use for cash hotels, which frees up space for someone else.)

Bottom line: DVC construction doesn't signify that DVC owners are more important to Disney than cash guests...it just means Disney still has buyers for the product. At best, they will sell 50-80 DVC contracts per day. But in that same day they also need to fill about 25,000 hotel rooms at Walt Disney World alone.

And as individuals become DVC owners Obviously, the demand is there because they keep building DVC. While they're separate entities, they all represent The Mouse in the minds of buyers. In my opinion... It's critical to the WDW business model to have happy DVC members. Maybe the Disney accountants tell them they don't need to have happy resale buyers? But i'd guess if the decision is made to impose more restrictions, more than just DVD accountants had a hand in that desicion.

Without belaboring the point, I think you overstate the willingness of DVC owners to simply walk away from the product. Like Bill said, Disney has been putting the screws to ALL guests for many years now. Higher prices, declining meal portions and quality, reduced operating hours, reduced EMH, more restrictive policies, etc.

Every Disney guest / DVC owner has his or her breaking point but that bar is set much higher than you may think.

 

[gray52]

DVC has a very small ownership base, 200,000 memberships, WD Parks and Resorts had 126,479,000 visitors last year. Based on the numbers and their actions, I don't think that Disney is worried about what DVC owners think.

Bill

126,479,000 vs 200,000... Now there's some perspective. You've made me do a 180. Forget everything i just said. With those numbers, i'm a little surprised they haven't done more.

 

[hapablap21]

Of course there is some benefit.

6) At any time they believe a resale buyer is getting TOO GOOD OF A DEAL. They have right of first refusal. They can take that resale away from the buyer. So, all this talk about how resale owners are some how hurting direct owners - blame DVD, they can buy up every single contract. Obviously they don't want to do that. It's a symbiotic relationship. They need resale customers to keep values high. Additional restrictions will decrease resale value thereby hurting direct purchasers the most.

This is the core of the whole issue, I think. DVC has a perverse incentive thing going on. In a perfect world, they'd like resale to not exist, but they would also like direct buyers to have complete comfort that they can get their money out of the deal any time they want.

My wife and I did the DVC song and dance sales pitch that ends with icecream about 6 years ago, and one of the things that the guide emphasized was that there WAS a strong resale market, and that they could even support resale prices through ROFR. They need to be able to tell buyers who are on the fence that their money is safe, and that if they ever need the money, they can get out. If they collapse the resale market entirely, they've only shot themselves in the foot.

 

[tjkraz]

DVC has a very small ownership base, 200,000 memberships, WD Parks and Resorts had 126,479,000 visitors last year. Based on the numbers and their actions, I don't think that Disney is worried about what DVC owners think.

The balance isn't quite that bad. If my family of 4 spends 2 weeks per year at a DVC resort, that's about 56 park admissions (14 days x 4 people). But it's only one DVC ownership.

A single DVC contract translates to dozens of park visits by owners, friends and family each year.

Still, I agree that WDW and DL aren't going to bend their policies to appease DVC owners. And DVC doesn't have the clout necessary to dictate policy.

My wife and I did the DVC song and dance sales pitch that ends with icecream about 6 years ago, and one of the things that the guide emphasized was that there WAS a strong resale market, and that they could even support resale prices through ROFR. They need to be able to tell buyers who are on the fence that their money is safe, and that if they ever need the money, they can get out. If they collapse the resale market entirely, they've only shot themselves in the foot.

A strong resale market is a useful tool for those Guide sales pitches, but it's certainly not a "need."

6 years ago resale prices were running about 85% of direct. Today it varies more by property, but the range is around 50-70%. The lower percent doesn't appear to be hurting sales at all.

Most other timeshares are worth about ten cents on the dollar after a direct purchase. Those salespeople avoid the resale issue altogether and those who end up buying apparently gave it no consideration whatsoever.

At the end of the day, timeshares are bought because of the benefits they deliver. People want to own DVC for the yearly visits to the Grand Floridian or Contemporary. Most people give little-to-no consideration to all of the "what ifs".