Changes in points chart

[gray52]

Could someone please explain to me the fluctuation limits that DVC has on their ability to change the points charts? Seems they are changing every year. Are they limited in catagories, views, season, or accomodation (studio vs 1BR vs 2BR)? Or do they have X number points per resort and can change the chart however they want? I notice most will not change in 2013. The one major exception being SSR 3-bedroom THV. 60pt difference for a week during Premier Season, 51pt difference in Magic Season. That seems like a major shift? Many years ago when we did the tour (didn't purchase), they skirted the topic very well.

 

[scottashackleton]

Could someone please explain to me the fluctuation limits that DVC has on their ability to change the points charts? Seems they are changing every year. Are they limited in catagories, views, season, or accomodation (studio vs 1BR vs 2BR)? Or do they have X number points per resort and can change the chart however they want? I notice most will not change in 2013. The one major exception being SSR 3-bedroom THV. Many years ago when we did the tour (didn't purchase), they skirted the topic very well.

If you added up all the points for all 365 nights in a given calendar year for a given resort, that number will never change. They can make some nights more expensive, but those points will be taken from nights elsewhere, thus making them cheaper.

 

[tjkraz]

I believe the POS states that any one given night cannot increase by more than 20% from year-to-year. Of course, that still means they could increase a night by 40% over 2 years, 60% over 3 years and so on.

As prior poster said, whenever something goes up there must be a corresponding reduction elsewhere. Treehouse Villas went up due to popularity. That was offset by reductions in the nightly cost of most other villas at SSR.

I can appreciate the anxiety this can cause among some but really such adjustments are in the program's best interest. Demand is not the same across all seasons, room types, views, etc. The variable costs exist to help balance out member demand--they charge more for dates/views/locations which are popular and less for dates/views/locations which are unpopular.

It's all about striving for 100% occupancy. Member demand patterns change over time and DVC really does have an obligation to make adjustments which attempt to balance that demand for all dates across all resorts and villa types.

 

[Deb & Bill]

...Many years ago when we did the tour (didn't purchase), they skirted the topic very well.

We bought in 1997 and were told that points could change, but some would change upwards and some downwards. The total would remain the same. But we were also told that there had only been one change so far. In recent years, it takes a little more time to get it right, so they have been changing them for the past few years.

Like Tim said, they are trying to balance out demand with availability.

 

[gray52]

I understood fully going in that they could and would change. But that jump in the THV was kind of a head turner. I just wondered if there were different totals for certain categoryies or if all points for the entire resort for the full year were all thrown together and they could increase/decrease wherever. So far, the changes have mostly helped us rather than hurt us... but if i'm making out in the deal, someone else isn't.

 

[NoMatter]

all are correct in that if something goes up another has to come down. A few years back the weekend was so expensive and now it is more reasonable. It used to be we would use DVC for the week and book a cash rese for Fri and Sat as it was cheaper than using our points. Also demand is driving the charts.

 

[tjkraz]

So far, the changes have mostly helped us rather than hurt us... but if i'm making out in the deal, someone else isn't.

That goes without saying. Bear in mind that the greater the uproar over a given change, the more it was needed. Back when weekdays were increased in cost, a lot of people were very upset with the move. That speaks to the degree to which the changes were needed. Too many people were targeting the Sunday - Thursday night stays, with high vacancies on the weekends.

I suspect the same became true of SSR Treehouses. From the moment they were added, DVC projected that points = to a two bedroom villa were appropriate given some of the unique challenges of a Treehouse stay (no king bed, poor transportation, isolated villas.) But over time the Treehouses proved quite popular, thus justifying a higher cost than the typical two bedroom villa.

 

[disneynutz]

I believe the POS states that any one given night cannot increase by more than 20% from year-to-year. Of course, that still means they could increase a night by 40% over 2 years, 60% over 3 years and so on.

As prior poster said, whenever something goes up there must be a corresponding reduction elsewhere. Treehouse Villas went up due to popularity. That was offset by reductions in the nightly cost of most other villas at SSR.

I can appreciate the anxiety this can cause among some but really such adjustments are in the program's best interest. Demand is not the same across all seasons, room types, views, etc. The variable costs exist to help balance out member demand--they charge more for dates/views/locations which are popular and less for dates/views/locations which are unpopular.

It's all about striving for 100% occupancy. Member demand patterns change over time and DVC really does have an obligation to make adjustments which attempt to balance that demand for all dates across all resorts and villa types.

I really don't understand how 100% occupancy benefits the members. Increasing the points required for a popular resort or room category doesn't seems like it benefits the members either. I can see where Disney may benefit if it creates available inventory 60 days before check in and the rooms are turned over to Disney.

Tim, could you help me get a better understanding?

Bill

 

[dzorn]

I really don't understand how 100% occupancy benefits the members. Increasing the points required for a popular resort or room category doesn't seems like it benefits the members either. I can see where Disney may benefit if it creates available inventory 60 days before check in and the rooms are turned over to Disney.

Tim, could you help me get a better understanding?

Bill

Well if occupancy is less than 100% somone is not getting to use their points. If it is a trade out and DVC can recoop some of the cost of a trade from CRO possibly if the room is rented out. If it is not a trade out then someones points are going to expire unused. As a member I know I don't want my points to expire without using them.

Denise in MI

 

[hakepb]

If you added up all the points for all 365 nights in a given calendar year for a given resort, that number will never change. They can make some nights more expensive, but those points will be taken from nights elsewhere, thus making them cheaper.

And its not just as simple as adding up the points on the chart, you have to multiply the points by number of units in each category. (Which always brings up the question of 2BR lockoff vs 1BR+studio allocation).
BLT just saw a different reallocation "method" due to bad view complaints, DVC moved 10 MK view rooms into the standard view category. Those 10 rooms will be booked with cheaper SV points, while the rest of the resort saw increases to make up for those 10 rooms.

Basically if DVC sells 6 million points in a resort then the total number of points needed to book the entire resort for a year cannot exceed 6 million. (And there is a slight year to year difference because the number of weekend days vary each calander year)

 

[gray52]

BLT just saw a different reallocation "method" due to bad view complaints, DVC moved 10 MK view rooms into the standard view category. Those 10 rooms will be booked with cheaper SV points, while the rest of the resort saw increases to make up for those 10 rooms.

Wow... i didn't realize they were able to change room views too. So basically, the total points must stay the same, everything else is fair game? Watching the points changing in recent years, i theorize that DVC saw some benefit to doing so other than the obvious (not as many staying on the weekends). I thought maybe that when DVC changed the points values, they saw X number of members purchase X number of add-on points to cover the changes. I would think members rarely sell points because they have a few too many... they bank them. So it's a win/win for DVC.
I'm hoping that the lack of changes this year means they've equaled things out enough and future changes will be minimal.

 

[BEASLYBOO]

Frankly, I was surprised that the points for THV were equal to a SSR 2br from the get go! As a Floridian who typicaly vacations Sun-Thu, the re-allocations haven't helped me but I knew it could happen, I didn't think they would do so many back to back, but so be it, DVC still works for how I use it!

 

[luckyman_apd]

Frankly, I was surprised that the points for THV were equal to a SSR 2br from the get go! As a Floridian who typicaly vacations Sun-Thu, the re-allocations haven't helped me but I knew it could happen, I didn't think they would do so many back to back, but so be it, DVC still works for how I use it!

I am just joining now, but looking back in history, I would NOT have bought in if weekend points were that much higher than weekday. I am not someone who can do weekday only trips, so I would have been annoyed seeing the huge point differences. I do agree with the poster that said the more the outrage at the points change, the more they were needed.

I think the THV do have some drawbacks as the poster above said, and probably why they were the same cost as a 2br. But with the demand so high, and SSR 2br were probably sitting empty, I can see the need for change.

With more DVC construction planned (GF) I don't see Disney changing points around to screw anyone over. If there is room to increase their profit margin, I can see them doing it, but not as a primary factor. Keeping the system running smoothly I'm sure is a more likely objective.

 

[DebbieB]

I was surprised there were not more changes. I fully expected October, November, early December to go up based on the high demand for Food & Wine Festival and the start of the holiday activities. Boardwalk usually is full by 7 months for most of that time but it wasn't touched.

 

[disneynutz]

Well if occupancy is less than 100% somone is not getting to use their points. If it is a trade out and DVC can recoop some of the cost of a trade from CRO possibly if the room is rented out. If it is not a trade out then someones points are going to expire unused. As a member I know I don't want my points to expire without using them.

Denise in MI

Still doesn't make sense. Disney doesn't care if your points expire and how does increasing the required number of points obtain 100% occupancy?

Bill

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Still doesn't make sense. Disney doesn't care if your points expire and how does increasing the required number of points obtain 100% occupancy?

Bill

Wouldn't it just be falling under their fiduciary responsibility rather than the goodness of their hearts to make certain everyone has the best opportunity to use their points thru 100% occupancy?

 

[disneynutz]

Wouldn't it just be falling under their fiduciary responsibility rather than the goodness of their hearts to make certain everyone has the best opportunity to use their points thru 100% occupancy?

I am really missing something here.

Disney wants 100% occupancy, so they raise the points required for the most popular resorts and time periods???

That decreases the number of members using their points then or there, or they have to buy more points to continue staying at their favorite resort at their favorite time.

I don't see how that changes a thing other than maybe increasing sales for Disney.

All members will use all of their points somewhere every year or lose them. If I can't get a reservation at THV who just had a increase in points, I will book at SSR or OKW like everyone else because they are usually available.

Increasing the required points only made the members use their points up faster, it didn't increase the occupancy.

Bill

 

[Mtnman44]

It's not the times that are already at 100% that disney is concerned with, it is the unbalanced use of the resort for the year. This is no different than the reasons a BW view costs more points than a standard view at BWV. People are less inclined to pay for other rooms at BWV if they cost the same as a BW view. Same idea with the treehouses.

It spreads out the demand, which is better for occupancy and member experice. Super popular times/rooms will be have a bit fewer members trying for reservations if those points are raised. At the same time, less popular times/rooms will have more members booking those when points are lowered.

So popular times/rooms will be a bit easier to book and less popular times/rooms will be more full and affordable.

I am really missing something here.

Disney wants 100% occupancy, so they raise the points required for the most popular resorts and time periods???

That decreases the number of members using their points then or there, or they have to buy more points to continue staying at their favorite resort at their favorite time.

I don't see how that changes a thing other than maybe increasing sales for Disney.

All members will use all of their points somewhere every year or lose them. If I can't get a reservation at THV who just had a increase in points, I will book at SSR or OKW like everyone else because they are usually available.

Increasing the required points only made the members use their points up faster, it didn't increase the occupancy.

Bill

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I am really missing something here.

Disney wants 100% occupancy, so they raise the points required for the most popular resorts and time periods???

That decreases the number of members using their points then or there, or they have to buy more points to continue staying at their favorite resort at their favorite time.

I don't see how that changes a thing other than maybe increasing sales for Disney.

All members will use all of their points somewhere every year or lose them. If I can't get a reservation at THV who just had a increase in points, I will book at SSR or OKW like everyone else because they are usually available.

Increasing the required points only made the members use their points up faster, it didn't increase the occupancy.

Bill

If DVC can direct some owners away from the most popular categories in to others because the popular ones cost a lot more then they are helping to achieve 100% occupancy. Same thing with seasons. Early Dec was a slow time to go but the savings shifted people to that time. Now, if there's too great a shift and DVC has rooms open during the summer but sells out at 11 months for the first week of Dec they need to do some shifting to direct owners to the times they need to fill in. I can see where you are coming from with the perspective of a member that wants to go at a certain time but DVC isn't going to look at making certain a member can always go at one particular time - they are looking to encourage all rooms to be filled year round which achieves the usage of all points that they sold. And some people will change vacations rather than use more points. Kind of the beauty and the curse of the points system.

 

[BEASLYBOO]

I don't see how that changes a thing other than maybe increasing sales for Disney.

All members will use all of their points somewhere every year or lose them. If I can't get a reservation at THV who just had a increase in points, I will book at SSR or OKW like everyone else because they are usually available.

Increasing the required points only made the members use their points up faster, it didn't increase the occupancy.

Bill

Totally agree, example: Hence, why so many bashed OKW for its old, tatty appearance but yet still booked there but it's not as cheap as it used to be to stay there now!

Some may buy more points, but I for one and I'm sure many others will just change the lenghth my vacations, or borrow till there's nothing to borrow from!