Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Brian Noble]

I don't think runDisney has ever put a hold on registration slots. They know how to do it for DVC reservations, so it's presumably a choice.

I'm also not sure why, exactly, but registering for those races has become absolutely bonkers. It makes Moonlight Magic look positively calm.

 

[mkatsy]

I don't think runDisney has ever put a hold on registration slots. They know how to do it for DVC reservations, so it's presumably a choice.

I'm also not sure why, exactly, but registering for those races has become absolutely bonkers.

From the complaints I read, it seems like a third party called “active” used to manage the sales and Disney brought it in house, and does it themselves now. They have some VERY unhappy customers

 

[Kingkonig]

Unless something drastically changes in the Disney IT department, I think we need to lower our expectations on getting a solution to the bot situation. Yesterday was a run Disney sale date, and people are furious. The software was not holding the selected race in the cart, by the time people finished entering their payment and emergency contact info, their selection was sold out. that is a basic IT function. Today a major hotel discount dropped for the holiday season and it crashed the server, people (including the TA) are furious. Anticipating server load is a basic IT function. stopping bots can require a more complex solution … I’m not holding my breath.

Ah, no wonder I struggled to log in to both DVC and my cruise reservation.

 

[muppets3d]

Unless something drastically changes in the Disney IT department, I think we need to lower our expectations on getting a solution to the bot situation. Yesterday was a run Disney sale date, and people are furious. The software was not holding the selected race in the cart, by the time people finished entering their payment and emergency contact info, their selection was sold out. that is a basic IT function. Today a major hotel discount dropped for the holiday season and it crashed the server, people (including the TA) are furious. Anticipating server load is a basic IT function. stopping bots can require a more complex solution … I’m not holding my breath.

I think getting the commercial renters out will do a lot to stop the bot problem. Grandma and Grandpa aren't employing bots to book their vacations, only the commercial renters are. Besides, DVC typically doesn't have the volume of traffic that runDisney and new merch drops have.

 

[GoingSince1990]

Sorry if this has been answered I dont have time to read the whole thread, but can you have 20 reservations PER MEMBERSHIP or is it 20 reservations per owner in a 12 month period? Even i may be getting close to 20 with all the split stays across 3 memberships

My understanding at this point is that you will be flagged if you go over 20 reservations per owner in a rolling 12 month period. However, if you are flagged, there is apparently a new "safe harbor" provision that if the total of your rental income (across all of your memberships) is lower than the total of your annual dues (across all of your memberships) then DVC will accept that you are not operating "commercially".

 

[supersnoop]

How is "reservation" defined and what counts towards the 20 threshold?

When I'm trying to piece together a stay, I might have seven individual nights reserved, and that might eventually turn into one or two reservations that I actually use. Do cancelled reservations count? Is it just active and completed reservations?

 

[Brian Noble]

For what it's worth, it is more or less impossible to distinguish between a fast human and an automated process because the automated process can emluate a fast human, just slightly faster. Things that require "human intelligence" generally don't; the few that do can be done very inexpensively (and quickly) via mechanical turk.

 

[Tatebeck]

My understanding at this point is that you will be flagged if you go over 20 reservations per owner in a rolling 12 month period. However, if you are flagged, there is apparently a new "safe harbor" provision that if the total of your rental income (across all of your memberships) is lower than the total of your annual dues (across all of your memberships) then DVC will accept that you are not operating "commercially".

That's not how I understood it. I took it to mean that you have to follow BOTH the 20 reservation rule AND the total rental being less than total dues rule. Your interpretation seems like you only would have to follow one of the two rules.

The only rule we have been given in writing said that you can have 0 rentals if you want to have over 20 reservations. Full stop. It doesn't matter what your income would have been at that point.

Then we have been told that you can be considered commercial also if you have rented out for more than your total dues for the year. Seemingly regardless of the number of reservations.

So I think we are meant to follow both rules at once, not one or the other. Unless they have come out and said that the rental vs dues comparison was being used AFTER the 20 reservation rule. Which I don't think I have seen that

 

[mkatsy]

For what it's worth, it is more or less impossible to distinguish between a fast human and an automated process because the automated process can emluate a fast human, just slightly faster. Things that require "human intelligence" generally don't; the few that do can be done very inexpensively (and quickly) via mechanical turk.

I have seen a very motivated college kid with a gaming computer, gaming mouse, an Ethernet cord, who throttled the rest of their family’s internet signal, acquire multiple play stations -signed the owner of three PlayStations

 

[Mommb]

How is "reservation" defined and what counts towards the 20 threshold?

When I'm trying to piece together a stay, I might have seven individual nights reserved, and that might eventually turn into one or two reservations that I actually use. Do cancelled reservations count? Is it just active and completed reservations?

I would be very surprised if cancelled reservation are considered, especially if they were made in the name of the owner. Making a reservation then cancelling or moving it when plans change is perfectly in line with using a membership for personal use.

Given that the "20 reservation" rule has apparently been continually in place for over a decade without people complaining that they were questioned about making a large number of reservations, it is possible that DVC is looking at a series of consecutive individual reservations with the same owner as a guest as a single reservation. As people have pointed out, in 2011 there were fewer DVC resorts and therefore fewer owners booking split stays, so booking 20 stays in a year would be unusual for someone using their membership for personal use. Now, with more resorts, more owners may be booking a total of 20 reservations for themselves and their family.

If you are using your membership almost exclusively for vacations you are taking (including vacations booked for others at the same time as you have a booking), I wouldn't worry about the new enforcement. Even if you are questioned, it should be easy to show that you are engaging in personal use for yourself, your friends, and your family.

 

[Sandisw]

That's not how I understood it. I took it to mean that you have to follow BOTH the 20 reservation rule AND the total rental being less than total dues rule. Your interpretation seems like you only would have to follow one of the two rules.

The only rule we have been given in writing said that you can have 0 rentals if you want to have over 20 reservations. Full stop. It doesn't matter what your income would have been at that point.

Then we have been told that you can be considered commercial also if you have rented out for more than your total dues for the year. Seemingly regardless of the number of reservations.

So I think we are meant to follow both rules at once, not one or the other. Unless they have come out and said that the rental vs dues comparison was being used AFTER the 20 reservation rule. Which I don't think I have seen that

I am all going to be asking for further info, via certified letter again, to make sure that all offical documents were sent.

Since the offical policy says don’t consider it an exhaustive list, then that implies there would be more they can add.

So, I need to make sure how we, as owners, view that if it exists. If they have a policy, but then say it’s only a partial policy, then I would think they need to provide what else is being used right now.

Will do that when I get back from my cruise.

 

[Mouseforward]

I am all going to be asking for further info, via certified letter again, to make sure that all offical documents were sent.

Since the offical policy says don’t consider it an exhaustive list, then that implies there would be more they can add.

So, I need to make sure how we, as owners, view that if it exists. If they have a policy, but then say it’s only a partial policy, then I would think they need to provide what else is being used right now.

Will do that when I get back from my cruise.

You should be drinking and picking out your red outfit right now.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I found your hat View attachment 982251

This post is gold

 

[VGCgroupie]

Oh wow I have 19 reservations, they're all under my name except one, so im in the clear but pretty crazy that I could potentially be flagged and I want one more contract soon

Girl you went 0 to 60 in DVC lightening fast!!

 

[VGCgroupie]

How is "reservation" defined and what counts towards the 20 threshold?

When I'm trying to piece together a stay, I might have seven individual nights reserved, and that might eventually turn into one or two reservations that I actually use. Do cancelled reservations count? Is it just active and completed reservations?

Nobody knows

 

[Girlstar30]

Girl you went 0 to 60 in DVC lightening fast!!

I came in like a wrecking ball (to disboards too) and no regrets!!!

We are touring Cotino right now, safe to say i have an addiction My wife told the sales guide that Disney is her life now

im thinking of starting a thread speculating if the new hotel is going to be dvc, but I dont feel like arguing today

 

[Girlstar30]

Nobody knows

If cancelled reservations count im probably banned above the 50 threshold

 

[sndral]

…
Bolding above by me...and here's my view - DVC has very little incentive to do anything else. The reality is this whole behavior CREATES demand for points, which inflates the direct purchase price DVC can charge and allows them to justify building more DVC resorts. If DVC really tightened the screws on rentals as much as they could, we'd see more massive dumps of contracts onto the resale market (like we saw with AUL in the past year), which would eventually depress resale pricing...putting further pressure on direct pricing. The only rational thing for DVC to do is "just enough" to placate wider membership dissatisfaction.

I disagree for a couple of reasons.
First, I can pick up a resale contract in other timeshare systems for pennies yet they manage to show a decent profit via direct sales, so I’m not sure today’s DVC cares about resale value.
Second when resale value has crashed in the past - circa 2008 - DVC did not use ROFR to protect resale value.
Third, if DVC cared about resale value or thought they needed high resale prices to justify their high direct prices they never would have gone down the restricted resort road.
DVC makes its profit via direct sales & I very much doubt that the gorillas in the point rental market are buying direct contracts, my guess is that they’re buying resale as cheaply as they can. If they’re put out of business they’ll dump their contracts I expect, but as long as DVC can market to direct buyers by persuading them that direct is better than resale because …benefits, I don’t think a depression in resale prices will concern DVC.

 

[Mouseforward]

I disagree for a couple of reasons.
First, I can pick up a resale contract in other timeshare systems for pennies yet they manage to show a decent profit via direct sales, so I’m not sure today’s DVC cares about resale value.
Second when resale value has crashed in the past - circa 2008 - DVC did not use ROFR to protect resale value.
Third, if DVC cared about resale value or thought they needed high resale prices to justify their high direct prices they never would have gone down the restricted resort road.
DVC makes its profit via direct sales & I very much doubt that the gorillas in the point rental market are buying direct contracts, my guess is that they’re buying resale as cheaply as they can. If they’re put out of business they’ll dump their contracts I expect, but as long as DVC can market to direct buyers by persuading them that direct is better than resale because …benefits, I don’t think a depression in resale prices will concern DVC.

Have to agree, DVC only makes money on direct and based on the expansion of DVC they must be making plenty.

I think ROFR has only been used in the past 5 years to add points to sold out resorts where they think they need them. I don't think they ROFR to keep the resale price high.

Restrictions are not a short term win, but they are not stopping sales. In 10 years we will see that the resale market is a shadow of what it is now. They will eventually not need any more new DVC properties and then they can just churn the resale they get via ROFR as needed back into Direct Sales.

 

[lowlight]

im thinking of starting a thread speculating if the new hotel is going to be dvc, but I dont feel like arguing today

There's a new hotel coming besides Disney's Duck Pond Dump?