Buy a contract to pay dues?

My source tells me it is a matter of time for companies like David's. He "claims" legal is working on it. No idea if he actually knows what he is talking about

Technically aren't brokers like Daddio not renting out points, they are bring owners with points and renters who want points together and it is the owners that are the renting out their points? Most of those owners are probably only doing the occasional rental when they want to get rid of their points for some reason, so they probably aren't doing a lot of rentals each year anyway.
 
I expect that Disney will modify their definition of commercial renting. They already changed the rules about Associates on our membership accounts due to renting and I am told that they are continuing to look at the renting issue. Apparently they feel that if renting went away, it would increase their cash reservations and DVC sales.

:earsboy: Bill

Personally I think that most buyers believe that it is a plus to be allowed to rent out their points if they have to, so I don't see that removing the ability to rent will increase DVC sales, if anything it would cause some people to decide not to purchase.
 
And have Reedy Creek pass new local regulations.
And, as a reminder, Reedy Creek is a governmental entity that just happens to be owned lock, stock, and barrel by the company.

If it were me, and I wanted to curtail the brokers, I'd narrow the definition of "commercial" to include "advertising broadly, directly or through an agent." But, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know?

What I *do* know is that while Disney does not hold all the cards, and does tend to tread lightly in these sorts of situations, they also almost certainly take a dim view of the increasing rental market, and control quite a bit of the appropriate legal apparatus that backs the system. Some of that they can't (easily) change, but some of it they can. Given enough time and the right motivation, they could well come up with something. They won't be able to eliminate renting completely, but they can probably make life more difficult for the larger competitors.
 
I have a (probably) silly question...

*IF* Disney decided to crack down on rentals, how would they authenticate a reservation as a "rental"? How hard would it be to say, "This reservation is for my cousin's family"? The money would change hands under the table, just like it does now for point transfers, right? What about those who own a large number of points and use them to reserve "bonus" vacations for their employees? I believe they probably have a large number of reservations per year made under names that are not on the deed. There just seems to be so many legitimate uses of points outside of the members' own use that it would be very difficult to put any sort of restrictions on a reservation for a non-member. I understand that there is currently a bit of an "honor system" where members are required to tell MS if the reservation is for a renter, but it is up to the member if they want to obey that rule.

As others have touched on, I think that renting has a benefit for Disney in that it allows those on the fence about purchasing an affordable way to test the product. We stayed at OKW in 2001 and paid full rack-rate for a 2BR because we didn't know any better. I did research into DVC and found out about renting points. In 2008, we rented points to stay in a 1BR at OKW which reaffirmed our decision to never stay in a regular hotel room again. While our rental transaction was easy and effortless, I still wanted to have the control that comes with ownership. I rented points for a stay at AKV since that is the resort we were most interested in and we ended up purchasing an AKV contract. I paid just over $1K for 6 nights in a savanna-view studio....Disney charged $440 + tax per night for that same room. There is NO way we would have stayed at AKV if we had to pay cash via CRO. By renting the points, we were able to affordably test the product that we ultimately bought so it was a win-win situation.
 

I have a (probably) silly question...

*IF* Disney decided to crack down on rentals, how would they authenticate a reservation as a "rental"? How hard would it be to say, "This reservation is for my cousin's family"? The money would change hands under the table, just like it does now for point transfers, right? What about those who own a large number of points and use them to reserve "bonus" vacations for their employees? I believe they probably have a large number of reservations per year made under names that are not on the deed. There just seems to be so many legitimate uses of points outside of the members' own use that it would be very difficult to put any sort of restrictions on a reservation for a non-member. I understand that there is currently a bit of an "honor system" where members are required to tell MS if the reservation is for a renter, but it is up to the member if they want to obey that rule.

As others have touched on, I think that renting has a benefit for Disney in that it allows those on the fence about purchasing an affordable way to test the product. We stayed at OKW in 2001 and paid full rack-rate for a 2BR because we didn't know any better. I did research into DVC and found out about renting points. In 2008, we rented points to stay in a 1BR at OKW which reaffirmed our decision to never stay in a regular hotel room again. While our rental transaction was easy and effortless, I still wanted to have the control that comes with ownership. I rented points for a stay at AKV since that is the resort we were most interested in and we ended up purchasing an AKV contract. I paid just over $1K for 6 nights in a savanna-view studio....Disney charged $440 + tax per night for that same room. There is NO way we would have stayed at AKV if we had to pay cash via CRO. By renting the points, we were able to affordably test the product that we ultimately bought so it was a win-win situation.

I would bet that there are a fair number of people that rent to "test" the product and then end up buying.
 
...but I'm sure Disney would rather be the one doing the renting, in that case.
 
http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=46249354&postcount=17

Just because you've said it twice doesn't mean it's true. The fact is I have been renting points for 15 years now with no ramifications. I don't think Disney is going to go back on their original prospectus. They've got bigger problems than low point renters. If they did have a problem companies like David's would be out of business.

I never said that they would take away renting. If they decide to do anything and numbers would decide if they would even bother, they would probably go after the obvious commercial renters.

They didn't like people becoming associates to rent out points for others so they already changed the associate rules.

:earsboy: Bill
 
Don't count on it. Next step. Define commercial. And it will be VERY narrow. And have Reedy Creek pass new local regulations. That is legal and they can say "only x is allowed". Happens all over Florida. My father's home for example cannot be rented for anything less then 6 months

They are already stalking the brokers.
They've already defined commercial and it's not very narrow. What they have to do in this situation is to label "commercial renting" in a term that the courts will not overturn it, tht means a wide birth from restrictions on any individual. To create anti-renting legislation would also have implications to Disney as well for the same reasons. That's not to say there aren't other areas they could go after like pictures and links but this is different than limiting renting itself. Clearly situations like David's and TSS are completely different and would fall on the other side of anyone's commercial renting definition.

I have a (probably) silly question...

*IF* Disney decided to crack down on rentals, how would they authenticate a reservation as a "rental"? How hard would it be to say, "This reservation is for my cousin's family"? The money would change hands under the table, just like it does now for point transfers, right? What about those who own a large number of points and use them to reserve "bonus" vacations for their employees? I believe they probably have a large number of reservations per year made under names that are not on the deed. There just seems to be so many legitimate uses of points outside of the members' own use that it would be very difficult to put any sort of restrictions on a reservation for a non-member. I understand that there is currently a bit of an "honor system" where members are required to tell MS if the reservation is for a renter, but it is up to the member if they want to obey that rule.

As others have touched on, I think that renting has a benefit for Disney in that it allows those on the fence about purchasing an affordable way to test the product. We stayed at OKW in 2001 and paid full rack-rate for a 2BR because we didn't know any better. I did research into DVC and found out about renting points. In 2008, we rented points to stay in a 1BR at OKW which reaffirmed our decision to never stay in a regular hotel room again. While our rental transaction was easy and effortless, I still wanted to have the control that comes with ownership. I rented points for a stay at AKV since that is the resort we were most interested in and we ended up purchasing an AKV contract. I paid just over $1K for 6 nights in a savanna-view studio....Disney charged $440 + tax per night for that same room. There is NO way we would have stayed at AKV if we had to pay cash via CRO. By renting the points, we were able to affordably test the product that we ultimately bought so it was a win-win situation.
This is part of the issue. They can't spend their time running down every single reservation. It's also ONE of the reasons that $$$ will never be in the equation for this issue.

I would bet that there are a fair number of people that rent to "test" the product and then end up buying.
I know that's true for me and I've only averaged about 2 a year or a little less. I think I've had 4 or 5 people buy in from renting.
 
I know that's true for me and I've only averaged about 2 a year or a little less. I think I've had 4 or 5 people buy in from renting.

Yep, we bought in after renting. I think the "commercial renting" is what they are not happy with, like's Davids and such. I never even knew what the DVC was all about. No clue until we rented. My brother rented from someone his wife knew, told me all about his stay at BLT. I had just gone the year before and stayed in a regular room at Coronado. After hearing about his experience and price.....man it was a no brainer. Once we rented once, we knew we NEVER wanted to stay in a regular room again. From there is was just the research and time before we pulled the trigger on our own purchase.

For us the purchase direct vs continued renting debate would have had us continue to rent for each trip, but once I learned about resale...forget it. Easy decision. So disneynuts has a point with renting cutting into sales........however, we will probably make more trips over time buying in. So who knows which would have netted disney more $.
 
luckyman_apd said:
Yep, we bought in after renting. I think the "commercial renting" is what they are not happy with, like's Davids and such.

I don't know. David's appears to me to just be a 3rd party brokering rentals for individuals. He offers a rental service, but I don't get the impression that his clientele are "in it for the money only" and are anything more than members who need to rent a few unused points. Maybe I'm wrong....
 
CRobin said:
I don't know. David's appears to me to just be a 3rd party brokering rentals for individuals. He offers a rental service, but I don't get the impression that his clientele are "in it for the money only" and are anything more than members who need to rent a few unused points. Maybe I'm wrong....

No I agree, David's clients are probably less likely to be the commercial renter types, IMO. Many are using his service because they are not as comfortable with doing it themselves. He is a broker though himself and Disney could take more steps to put the brokers out of business probably, if they wanted to.
 
No I agree, David's clients are probably less likely to be the commercial renter types, IMO. Many are using his service because they are not as comfortable with doing it themselves. He is a broker though himself and Disney could take more steps to put the brokers out of business probably, if they wanted to.

He's an intermediary who facilitates transactions between owners and renters. That's it. Disney could put him out of business overnight with one simple move: they could be the intermediary. I am not sure why they would want to do this though. On Disney's scale, it is small potatoes. It isn't worth their while to get into the act, and they should be thankful to have others taking care of it without Disney's involvement.

I don't think it makes much sense for Disney to try to cut into the DVC rental. That would be a very hostile anti-consumer move, and that isn't consistent with their business. If Disney wanted to force people into renting their rooms, they didn't need to get into the timeshare business. But they did, and they like it so much they keep adding resorts. They needn't care too much what goes on after they get their initial money and collect their annual dues. Somebody wants to re-sell? Who cares? Somebody wants to rent out their points? Big deal? Maybe put a 10,000 point cap on people or something, if for some reason you get worried about this issue. But trying to clamp down on people renting out their points or intermediaries who facilitate the process would be a pretty bad business idea, IMO.
 
....I don't think it makes much sense for Disney to try to cut into the DVC rental. That would be a very hostile anti-consumer move, and that isn't consistent with their business. If Disney wanted to force people into renting their rooms, they didn't need to get into the timeshare business. But they did, and they like it so much they keep adding resorts. They needn't care too much what goes on after they get their initial money and collect their annual dues. Somebody wants to re-sell? Who cares? Somebody wants to rent out their points? Big deal? Maybe put a 10,000 point cap on people or something, if for some reason you get worried about this issue. But trying to clamp down on people renting out their points or intermediaries who facilitate the process would be a pretty bad business idea, IMO.

DVC rentals cut into Disney's income. When villas don't get reserved, they get turned over to DRC to rent out. So if members didn't use their points to book reservations for others, the villas representing those points would go unused and sold to the highest bidder by Disney. Disney can also use DVC villas for upgrades if they are now cash reservations.
 
DVC rentals cut into Disney's income. When villas don't get reserved, they get turned over to DRC to rent out. So if members didn't use their points to book reservations for others, the villas representing those points would go unused and sold to the highest bidder by Disney. Disney can also use DVC villas for upgrades if they are now cash reservations.

I understand that Disney generates some amount of revenue by renting out rooms that they have sold previously but go unused. I don't blame them for "double-dipping" and trying to extract that extra revenue, but I hardly consider them entitled to it, and would view it quite negatively if they were to take measures to make that situation occur more frequently. Disney has already sold these rooms. If they outlaw renting so that they can turn around and rent them out themselves, then what they are saying is that the person who bought the unit can't rent it out, but the entity that sold them the unit can! If that doesn't tick you off as a purchaser, then you've got a very different temperament than I do! I consider that actively hostile and antagonistic toward their consumers. If they wanted to rent those rooms out, they shouldn't have sold them in the first place. Once sold, they shouldn't try to find ways to increase the ongoing revenue they generate at the expense of the people they sold them to. In fact, if I were Disney I really wouldn't much publicize that I am renting out previously-sold rooms at all. Maybe the less attention to this the better.

Here's an idea if they want to make something of this, which also ties in the resale angle. Take a positive approach by providing more value, rather than a restrictive approach. Disney could start an intermediary site for renting points. They would almost immediately take the entire space over, as almost everyone would go through Disney for their reservations. Disney could follow David's pricing scheme, or a different one, it wouldn't matter much because they would dominate regardless. But they could offer to only rent out points that were bought direct, not resale. This would be a feature they could begin to offer, and people might be persuaded to pay more for points direct, knowing that they could rent out through Disney. Right now, renting isn't even remotely part of the DVC pitch (we just attended a couple weeks ago). It is only mentioned in passing when I ask about why I shouldn't just keep renting points. Disney could flip this on its head and use renting points as a selling feature during their presentation. You aren't sure that you will take all these vacations? No problem. If you don't, you can rent out your points through us and make $X per point. Of course, Disney takes their cut. This is better because it is not anti-consumer, plus it makes their own direct sales points more attractive, which is something they are desperately in need of doing.
 
Disney's DVD is in the business to sell time shares and everything that they do is to promote that business. That is why DVC gives us perks, it's called PR. They don't care if points go unused and are forfeited. They do like it when DVC rooms are turned over to CRO for reservations, it makes them money and possibility a DVD sale that's why they made the rules and that's why they upgrade CRO guests with DVC stays.

I am sure that they have looked at providing a rental service for owners and again the money isn't enough for them to bother with. But if others are making too much money by renting and/or renting becomes too popular as is the current direction, then Disney gets upset and they will modify a rule or two.

Only Disney knows the tipping point.

My point is don't buy points to go into the rental business unless you are prepared to go out of business.

:earsboy: Bill
 
I understand that Disney generates some amount of revenue by renting out rooms that they have sold previously but go unused. I don't blame them for "double-dipping" and trying to extract that extra revenue, but I hardly consider them entitled to it, and would view it quite negatively if they were to take measures to make that situation occur more frequently. Disney has already sold these rooms. If they outlaw renting so that they can turn around and rent them out themselves, then what they are saying is that the person who bought the unit can't rent it out, but the entity that sold them the unit can! If that doesn't tick you off as a purchaser, then you've got a very different temperament than I do! I consider that actively hostile and antagonistic toward their consumers. If they wanted to rent those rooms out, they shouldn't have sold them in the first place. Once sold, they shouldn't try to find ways to increase the ongoing revenue they generate at the expense of the people they sold them to. In fact, if I were Disney I really wouldn't much publicize that I am renting out previously-sold rooms at all. Maybe the less attention to this the better.

You're missing one important piece of the puzzle, though. When Disney rents out rooms which are left vacant due to lack of member use, the proceeds from the transaction go back to DVC members. It's called "breakage" and it appears as a credit to our annual dues.

Disney does extract some (undefined) transaction fees for overhead and certainly the parks benefit by having more spending guests present, but members also benefit from the transactions. The 2012 budget for Saratoga Springs has a credit of more than $1.2 million for breakage revenue.

Overall Disney has a love/hate relationship with rentals. Really depends upon who you talk to.

DVC has benefitted over the years by former renters buying points and they obviously profited when the rental points were sold in the first place.

CRO (or whatever you want to call the cash reservation folks) don't like the fact that non-members can get Disney accommodations for 1/3 of the price thanks to the rental marketplace. To them, every dollar spent to rent points is money taken out of "Disney's" pockets.

The restrictiveness of certain policies will vary as different parties win or lose that ongoing tug-o-war.
 
You're missing one important piece of the puzzle, though. When Disney rents out rooms which are left vacant due to lack of member use, the proceeds from the transaction go back to DVC members. It's called "breakage" and it appears as a credit to our annual dues.

You are right, I was not aware of that!

I don't think it changes my position on what Disney ought to do with respect to preventing DVC members from renting their points. But it does help me understand why some DVC members who never have trouble using their points may have some antipathy for the idea of renting unused points.
 
Who says Disney doesn’t get any money from DVC renters? They might not directly get the rental money, but so what? My family just returned from a rented visit at Old Key West. When I checked out, I had north of $1100 on my tab from spending around Disney property. That didn’t include a week’s worth of park tickets for 3 adults and 2 children (plus one infant who got in free). I spent a few bucks on my credit card, too. My family is too large for a regular hotel room, and could not afford the vacation at Disney’s rack rates. In other words, we were only there because DVC renting was available. And on account of that, Disney got another few thousand dollars from my family (I haven’t tallied it all up, but that is ballpark). Technically, we could have stayed off-site, and perhaps some hotels would be large enough, but staying on Disney property is one of the things that we loved and will be bringing us back. And of course, Disney wouldn't have gotten anything directly from me staying offsite either, nor would I have encountered the lovely young lady at the DVC desk in the lobby.

And speaking of that, we were so impressed and delighted with our stay at OKW, that we went to the DVC open house. And we liked that so much, that we are in the process of buying our own piece of the mouse. Yes, it is on resale, so you could say that Disney is not getting any money directly from that purchase. But again, they are building a lifetime revenue stream of family visits that we would never have made if we could not stay at DVC villas. Disney is getting all that money. And even when my DVC contract runs out in 42 years, I have four children who are being indoctrinated in the mouse, who may well in turn continue the legacy with their families (a pretty explicit intention of Disney’s DVC program). And by the way, I would not have bought into DVC if I didn’t have the opportunity to rent out points in cases where my family is unable to take a trip for some reason. I’m not doing this to start a business or as a retirement investment. But I do run the numbers on any purchase as substantial as this, and the ability to recoup some money in years where points would otherwise go unused was an essential part of my decision.

And none of this happens if we weren’t able to rent a DVC villa. I seriously doubt I am alone. So sure, could Disney try to be more heavy-handed and police DVC rentals? I guess they could. But it would be mighty short-sighted. I think stamping out truly commercial renting entities that have no intention of staying at Disney and are impacting the market makes sense. At a minimum, reserving the right to do so if the need should arise. But to prevent someone from renting out their 250 points every few years, to someone who can afford to drop a few thousand dollars at Disney gets to go, rather than having empty rooms? Doesn’t make much business sense to me.

The thing is DVC did not get any of the money you spend while there. And if you buy resale they again get nothing from you in the future. They only make money by direct DVC sales nothing else.

You gave your money to Disney Parks and Resorts, not DVC. Big difference.

I seriously doubt DVC cares about the occasional renter that you describe.
 
Somebody wants to rent out their points? Big deal? Maybe put a 10,000 point cap on people or something, if for some reason you get worried about this issue.

I see now that they do in fact have a limit on the number of points you can own at any one home resort (2000) or at all DVC resorts combined (5000).
 

New Posts











DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom