Can Disney change the cost for OTU points?

[MouseOfCards]

Are OTU points fixed at $15/point for the life of the contract? Or can Disney raise the price overtime? If they stay at $15, they're going to be below market value not too long from now.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Yes they can change the price. There's no contract for them, nor does DVC have to offer them at all and didn't until a few years ago.

 

[MouseOfCards]

Yes they can change the price. There's no contract for them, nor does DVC have to offer them at all and didn't until a few years ago.

Thanks. Not exactly the answer I wanted to hear. So do you think they will start increasing the cost of these points?

 

[drusba]

Undoubtedly, remember Disney is the company that dealt with the Great Recession by raising all of its prices enormously. I would look at it as just a question of when. The current price is the same as it was when DVC adopted OTUP in 2010.

 

[Dean]

Thanks. Not exactly the answer I wanted to hear. So do you think they will start increasing the cost of these points?

I think it's inevitable they will increase the price. When they started this with the price of $15 per point, that was quite a bit higher than the standard rental price. Now it's roughly equal.

 

[disneynutz]

The points started being offered after DVC raised the point required to stay at the THV. During sales of the THV they set the points required lower and after selling out, they raised them. Offering OTU points IMO was their way of calming down new owners who now found that they didn't have enough points for their planned stays.

They can raise the price, change the maximum, or discontinue them. My bet is that they would increase the cost higher to cause many owners to just buy additional points.

Bill

 

[SL6827]

The points started being offered after DVC raised the point required to stay at the THV. During sales of the THV they set the points required lower and after selling out, they raised them. Offering OTU points IMO was their way of calming down new owners who now found that they didn't have enough points for their planned stays.

They can raise the price, change the maximum, or discontinue them. My bet is that they would increase the cost higher to cause many owners to just buy additional points.

Bill

But can't they lower and raise the number of points to stay in a unit as long as it is all balanced out in the end? What exactly did Disney do wrong here?

 

[CMNJ]

But can't they lower and raise the number of points to stay in a unit as long as it is all balanced out in the end? What exactly did Disney do wrong here?

I think the belief is that they intentionally set the points lower to generate sales. Once it was sold out they reallocated to match demand. We weren't owners at the time but that's what I've gathered from reading posts about it over time. This is also the fear many have expressed about the Poly. Some owners think in a few years to balance demand DVC will create a new category for studios to offset the points needed for the bungalows and/or to deal with the fact that nobody wants the parking lot views of Pago Pago. It is kind of crazy that the same # of points can get you a nice pool or partial lake view in Tokelau.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

But can't they lower and raise the number of points to stay in a unit as long as it is all balanced out in the end? What exactly did Disney do wrong here?

Yes, they had to lower elsewhere at SSR so technically no wrong doing. I believe some think it was nefarious on DVC's part - make the points equal to a 2BR thus attractive for sales. For me I think they just had no idea how popular they would be and "priced" the THV more in line with the popularity when they were available for public rooms - and they weren't necessarily all that popular then.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

It is kind of crazy that the same # of points can get you a nice pool or partial lake view in Tokelau.

Same thing goes for BLT, but they haven't added new categories. A lake view can be a near perfect view of the MK and Space Mountain, or an awful view (from the interior units) of the units on the other side of the crescent. I've had both in lake view. I suspect that so-long as the point utilization is balancing out in the way they intended/expected, they'll leave well-enough alone.

 

[disneynutz]

But can't they lower and raise the number of points to stay in a unit as long as it is all balanced out in the end? What exactly did Disney do wrong here?

What they did wrong IMO was selling THV and telling buyers that it's a great value, they can stay in a THV for the same number of points as a SSR 2-bedroom, selling out the points then increasing the required points for the THV.

Bill

 

[disneynutz]

Yes, they had to lower elsewhere at SSR so technically no wrong doing. I believe some think it was nefarious on DVC's part - make the points equal to a 2BR thus attractive for sales. For me I think they just had no idea how popular they would be and "priced" the THV more in line with the popularity when they were available for public rooms - and they weren't necessarily all that popular then.

I think that they knew exactly what they were doing, every guide used the cheap points for THV in their sales pitch. If they didn't know, I have to question what else do they make mistakes on that we never hear about?

Bill

 

[SL6827]

What they did wrong IMO was selling THV and telling buyers that it's a great value, they can stay in a THV for the same number of points as a SSR 2-bedroom, selling out the points then increasing the required points for the THV.

Bill

So in the past did the THVs require the same number of points as a 2-bedroom, then they did a re-allocation? This does sound somewhat shady.

 

[SL6827]

I think the belief is that they intentionally set the points lower to generate sales. Once it was sold out they reallocated to match demand. We weren't owners at the time but that's what I've gathered from reading posts about it over time. This is also the fear many have expressed about the Poly. Some owners think in a few years to balance demand DVC will create a new category for studios to offset the points needed for the bungalows and/or to deal with the fact that nobody wants the parking lot views of Pago Pago. It is kind of crazy that the same # of points can get you a nice pool or partial lake view in Tokelau.

Ya, I have read where some think they will do this at the Poly in the future.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I think that they knew exactly what they were doing, every guide used the cheap points for THV in their sales pitch. If they didn't know, I have to question what else do they make mistakes on that we never hear about?

Bill

Where I give them a pass on this is because they had history for the THV locations via the hotel side. They were considered too remote etc from what I recall and weren't all that popular - and then ended up being used for student housing quite a bit or completely because of it. Might have been ADA issues too - I really don't know about that but I do recall them not being very popular at a point. That's usually why DVC gets properties.

But I also think they make mistakes and don't find it unlikely that this was one - again, based on prior Treehouse experience rates.

That guides used it as a selling point is a given. It would have been a good one to have the points the same cost as a 2BR. Just marketing being driven by management decision in this case IMO vs Marketing making the decision which would have been improper and is more along the lines of your thinking I believe.

What they probably should have done though is a longer experience rate having it within DVC. In that regard I think they were a little heavily influenced by the initial popularity which tends to often happen as something new comes in and people want to try it out. From my reading it still has many of the same complaints as it did before - too remote and possibly would have equalized.

And DVD didn't really gain from the experience - again IMO. If they had done it higher to start it still would have sold IMO as SSR had been a steady seller all along. It's not like they were able to get more points to sell when they reallocated after sales - they just had to reduce other accommodations so an actual win for many SSR owners but nothing really to DVD.

 

[MrInfinity]

This is also the fear many have expressed about the Poly. Some owners think in a few years to balance demand DVC will create a new category for studios to offset the points needed for the bungalows and/or to deal with the fact that nobody wants the parking lot views of Pago Pago. It is kind of crazy that the same # of points can get you a nice pool or partial lake view in Tokelau.

I think this would be good for the Poly. Let people pay for the type of room they want... At a minimum, split Standard into Standard and Garden/Pool. It's frustrating to have the current situation in which nobody wants Pago Pago but someone will end up there most nights. I think people would prioritize Pago Pago if it was a savings, like how BLT Standard View rooms are the first to go.

Standard and Lake view currently do not have a big enough gap... only ~4 points. Compare to BLT where the gap is more like ~6-7 points. I would expect Standard to go down a few points... and then Garden/Pool view up a point or two, however it balances out. Instead of Pago Pago being the place nobody wants, it would be the category to fill up first.

 

[kristenrice]

I thought the OTUP were created due to the BLT situation??

...IIRC, BLT sales began with one points' chart, but then, before the resort opened the next year, the weekday/weekend reallocation was done. This did not go over well with people who bought, say 150 points at BLT, assuming a 5-weeknight stay at 30 points per night, only to have it increase to 33 points per night, adding 15 points to their stay and leaving them short every year. (**Those numbers are fictional and used for illustrative purposes only**) They couldn't do an add-on for 15 points so Disney created the OTUP for 24 points or less. If someone needed 25, they would have to buy an add-on.

In regards to the THV, I thought that they had the same point cost because they had similar amenities and the same occupancy as the 2BR's.

Anyways...I agree that the price of the OTUP is bound to go up, probably sooner vs. later, but that leads me to another question...what is DVD doing with the money that it earns from the sale of the points?

 

[tjkraz]

The points started being offered after DVC raised the point required to stay at the THV. During sales of the THV they set the points required lower and after selling out, they raised them. Offering OTU points IMO was their way of calming down new owners who now found that they didn't have enough points for their planned stays.

One time use points were introduced in April 2010.

Treehouse Villas points reallocation was announced in January 2012, effective for 2013.

Personally I think it's sort of silly to imply that the treehouses were deliberately priced lower as that move cost DVC money. Higher nightly costs means more points to sell.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I thought the OTUP were created due to the BLT situation??

...IIRC, BLT sales began with one points' chart, but then, before the resort opened the next year, the weekday/weekend reallocation was done. This did not go over well with people who bought, say 150 points at BLT, assuming a 5-weeknight stay at 30 points per night, only to have it increase to 33 points per night, adding 15 points to their stay and leaving them short every year. (**Those numbers are fictional and used for illustrative purposes only**) They couldn't do an add-on for 15 points so Disney created the OTUP for 24 points or less. If someone needed 25, they would have to buy an add-on.

In regards to the THV, I thought that they had the same point cost because they had similar amenities and the same occupancy as the 2BR's.

Anyways...I agree that the price of the OTUP is bound to go up, probably sooner vs. later, but that leads me to another question...what is DVD doing with the money that it earns from the sale of the points?

I thought they came about around the same time as the first point reallocation back in 2010? That was the year, wasn't it? BLT - they kind of left people swinging in the wind with although I believe they did actually allow a few people to essentially re-do their contracts or do a very small add on.

But then they did the reallocation which left a LOT of owners now short by a small amount (while others benefited but didn't need to make up points).

 

[tjkraz]

I thought they came about around the same time as the first point reallocation back in 2010? BLT - they kind of left people swinging in the wind with although I believe they did actually allow a few people to essentially re-do their contracts or do a very small add on.

But then they did the reallocation which left a LOT of owners now short by a small amount (while others benefited but didn't need to make up points).

The reallocation was announced in 2009 and went into effect with 2010 charts. OTU points came about in April 2010. So I would agree there was some cause-and-effect there.

DVC long resisted the idea, claiming they'd rather see owners buy new contracts than purchase single-use points. But when the recession hit, they were stuck with an enormous cache of points from the build they had under way. Without scouring the archives, I believe there was a time when they had AKV, BLT, SSR (Treehouse) and VGC points available with Aulani under construction. And hotel bookings weren't exactly brisk due to the economy.