Changes in points chart

[disneynutz]

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.

Owners have to use their points so if they don't get the popular resort, they have to book somewhere else, they have no choice other than to forfeit their points for that year and I wouldn't think that many do that.

If a resort isn't 100% occupied year round, how does that hurt the members? We still pay the same dues and Disney still gets the same fees for management and resort services. I can see where Disney wants a full house to maximize their profit potential.

If we maintained 95% occupancy, maybe they could take more rooms out of service and repair them or give the Mousekeepers some time to do a deep cleaning once in awhile.

Many post that it's Disney's responsibility to keep the system in balance but isn't it really Disney who benefits from 100% occupancy and not the members?

Bill

 

[wdrl]

Owners have to use their points so if they don't get the popular resort, they have to book somewhere else, they have no choice other than to forfeit their points for that year and I wouldn't think that many do that.

If a resort isn't 100% occupied year round, how does that hurt the members? We still pay the same dues and Disney still gets the same fees for management and resort services. I can see where Disney wants a full house to maximize their profit potential.

If we maintained 95% occupancy, maybe they could take more rooms out of service and repair them or give the Mousekeepers some time to do a deep cleaning once in awhile.

Many post that it's Disney's responsibility to keep the system in balance but isn't it really Disney who benefits from 100% occupancy and not the members?

Bill

Please keep in mind that there is a difference between "Disney" (as in TWDC) and Disney Vacation Club Management Company (DVCMC). The DVCMC has a fiduciary responsibility to the members of the respective condominium associations to assure that the members have access to the accommodations that have been purchased by each member.

If inventory goes unused by the membership, the underlying points will either expire and be lost for good, or will be banked into the next Use Year. However, if too many points are banked into the next UY, then this creates added pressure on the Condo Association to absorb those points. Eventually, there comes a breaking point when a UY cannot accommodate all the points that are banked into it. Neither situation is good for the Membership.

I don't have any inside information on how DVCMC decides if and when a point reallocation is needed. My theory is that DVCMC reallocates not because something is too popular, but because something is not popular enough. Case in point is the recent change at SSR. There is ample anecdotal information here on the disboards that SSR is the most under utilized DVC resort. In the 2013 Adventure and Dream seasons, the SSR two-bedrooms are going down in cost by 2.8% and 5.6%, respectively. With lower point costs, SSR may see an increase in demand for these accommodations. However, to fund that decrease in point cost, DVC has to increase points someplace else at SSR. The best candidate to absorb the increase are the Treehouse Villas. Since there are 792 two-bedroom villas but only 60 THVs, a small decrease in the cost of the former results in a double digit increase in the cost of the latter.

Another reason why I suspect that reallocations are driven by what is not popular enough is that DVCMC has not changed the season for early December. Although the first two weeks of December are extremely popular, DVCMC has kept that period in the Adventure season, which is the cheapest of the five DVC seasons. I don't think we will see early December reclassified to a more expensive season until some other period of the calendar demonstrates a significant underutilization by the Members.

 

[hakepb]

Owners have to use their points so if they don't get the popular resort, they have to book somewhere else, they have no choice other than to forfeit their points for that year and I wouldn't think that many do that.

If a resort isn't 100% occupied year round, how does that hurt the members? We still pay the same dues and Disney still gets the same fees for management and resort services. I can see where Disney wants a full house to maximize their profit potential.

If we maintained 95% occupancy, maybe they could take more rooms out of service and repair them or give the Mousekeepers some time to do a deep cleaning once in awhile.

Many post that it's Disney's responsibility to keep the system in balance but isn't it really Disney who benefits from 100% occupancy and not the members?

Bill

We pay DVD to manage our system and by contract they must maintain ownership of at least 2 or 3% of the total points for those maintenance issues. (100% DVC occupancy only means 100% of the DVC member owned points, which is really 97-98% occupancy). Confused

Disney does benefit from 100% (really 98%) occupancy because that's more people going into the parks.

But when usage patterns are out of whack, members suffer. In an extreme example, what if 5% of DVC members only stay wednesday night, and book every unit every wednesday right at the 11 month mark. Should the remaining 95% of DVC members supposed to change their vacation habits to a Thursday-Tuesday schedule just so they can get something close to a week stay?

 

[dzorn]

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

Disney has a responsibilty under Florida timeshare law. By changing the points hopefully you will change usage patters to even out supply and demand allowing everyone to use of there points. By decreasing points at certain times as an incentive to increase occupancy during low demand times.

Denise in MI

 

[dzorn]

Owners have to use their points so if they don't get the popular resort, they have to book somewhere else, they have no choice other than to forfeit their points for that year and I wouldn't think that many do that.If a resort isn't 100% occupied year round, how does that hurt the members? We still pay the same dues and Disney still gets the same fees for management and resort services. I can see where Disney wants a full house to maximize their profit potential.

If we maintained 95% occupancy, maybe they could take more rooms out of service and repair them or give the Mousekeepers some time to do a deep cleaning once in awhile.

Many post that it's Disney's responsibility to keep the system in balance but isn't it really Disney who benefits from 100% occupancy and not the members?

Bill

That is exactly how it hurts members. They may have to forgo using their points becasuse they cannot get a room at a time they are able to go. So you want to pay dues and not be able to vacation.

Denise in MI

 

[tjkraz]

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

It's all about balancing the available units with what members are willing to pay.

An Old Key West Studio is 10 points per night in September when business is slow and 20 points per night Christmas week which has high demand. In an extreme example, do you really think members would be better served if they simply charged 15 points per night, every night of the year?

Due to the lower cost, even more people would want to vacation Christmas week. Meanwhile, slow September dates go up in cost, which reduces demand. If they struggle to fill the resort in September at 10 pin, who is going to pay 15??

Arguing that Disney doesn't care about occupancy levels is missing the forest for the trees. When Disney sells a resort to 98% occupancy, they should see 98% occupancy. If they don't get 98% occupancy, that means members are not using their points. Member not using their points are unhappy members.

Sure there's a financial incentive to help get bodies into the parks, but that's secondary to creating a system in which all members are satisfactorily able to use the points they purchase. Best way to do that is to charge more when demand is otherwise high and charge less when demand is low.

Many post that it's Disney's responsibility to keep the system in balance but isn't it really Disney who benefits from 100% occupancy and not the members?

Both parties benefit. Whatever time period you have in mind when buying, you have a reasonable expectation of being able to get a room then. If you consistently can't get that room, you have a right to be dissatisfied.

Disney has the ability to respond to member demand by charging more when demand is high and less when demand is low. That benefits all members.

 

[gray52]

As the OP, i must admit i thought my question had a rather simple answer. I guess yes and no. I do enjoy reading a thread a little more complex than "is DVC right for me?" (not knocking that question one bit... that was me at one time).
Thanks to all the DVC/DIS vets who chimed in.

When DVC'ers buy in, i assume they're using the current chart to decide when they vacation and how many points they'll need. So any change at all would throw off the balance each year (at least a little) and that would change vacation strategies for some where adjustments need to be made... but each year they make more changes. Some sizable shifts over the past few years, in my opinion. Can they really decide after just one year that it's still out-of-balance, or if it's just been an off year for September because of last years points changes, for example. You would think they'd take their info, make changes and let that change settle. I just don't think that one year can tell you that much.
If resorts are not at 100% capacity, DVC still gets their money from all the dues... And then they would get additional revenue by booking the DVC resorts for cash, right? So any cash reservations should be money on top of the break even (assuming everyone pays their dues)?

 

[Deb & Bill]

...If resorts are not at 100% capacity, DVC still gets their money from all the dues... And then they would get additional revenue by booking the DVC resorts for cash, right? So any cash reservations should be money on top of the break even (assuming everyone pays their dues)?

I would think that more members would book outside of DVC and book more Non-DVC Disney resorts if they couldn't get the resort they wanted with their points. And those can cost DVC money. And DVC gets complaints from members about not being able to book their home resort.

 

[disneynutz]

I would think that more members would book outside of DVC and book more Non-DVC Disney resorts if they couldn't get the resort they wanted with their points. And those can cost DVC money. And DVC gets complaints from members about not being able to book their home resort.

If outside bookings increase, Disney would modify the program to control costs.

The Member complaints may increase but since they make more money selling than they do keeping us happy the writing is on the wall. Negative reports on the internet seem to have minimal impact on new buyers. There can be 20 posts of DISers advising someone not to buy, then they post how excited they are because they just bought direct.

Bill

 

[Deb & Bill]

If outside bookings increase, Disney would modify the program to control costs.

The Member complaints may increase but since they make more money selling than they do keeping us happy the writing is on the wall. Negative reports on the internet seem to have minimal impact on new buyers. There can be 20 posts of DISers advising someone not to buy, then they post how excited they are because they just bought direct.

Bill

You are so right, Bill.