Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Mouseforward]

I'm not sure why you're being rude, but it's not a quote. Period. And the paraphrasing that has been done to date has been grossly inaccurate, with personal interpretations inserted to reflect what they believe the intent of DVC actually is. Real deal, actual journalists mischaracterize and paraphrase people incorrectly on an hourly basis, so...

i just trust both sources judgment of what was said more than yours. Again you can argue or go to the meeting and ask yourself.

 

[lowlight]

i just trust both sources judgment of what was said more than yours. Again you can argue or go to the meeting and ask yourself.

I've never asked you to trust me. It may or may not be the correct interpretation, but again...it's not a quote and words matter. You can't say the DVC board says commercial renting is a tiny, inconsequential non-widespread behavior that isn't affecting the majority of the membership, because they didn't say that. If they did, it would be in every article written about the meeting as a quote, because it's an important qualifying statement. Further, the interpretation of what may, or may not have been said has been used for almost a year by the other side as if it were a direct quote to push an agenda. Here is how a conversation without an agenda would have gone so far:

Side 1- "Commercial renting really seems to be ramping up, I think it's affecting my studio availability."

Side 2- "Sorry to hear that, I hope they can curb this practice without affecting the membership as a whole negatively."

Instead, this is what we've gotten for years. On both commercial renting and walking, which are intrinsicially tied together:

Side 1- "Commercial renting really seems to be ramping up, I think it's affecting my studio availability."

Side 2- "I'm not affected by commercial renting at all, and I don't want something done that will hurt the membership as a whole. Also, people are allowed to rent, and the DVC board itself said commercial renting isn't widespread and it's not a big deal that affects the majority of members anyhow."

Commercial renting is a problem, and I will never, ever trust someone who tries to downplay it. I've tried putting myself in their shoes a bunch of times to understand why they are so adamantly pushing the narrative that commercial renting is a blip on the radar and nothing to be concerned about, and I can't think of a single reason to defend the behavior besides money.

 

[Cyberc1978]

FCFS is not in its nature selfish it is essentially a contest to fairly allocate scarce resources.

If it’s the same people or bots who get the rooms over and over again then I disagree.

However if the rooms were offered the same way as a moonlight magic then it were randomized as long as you entered the queue before the reservation window opens. I don’t know if that would qualify for FCFS.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Those scenarios actually aren't really the same thing, though I can see why to you they may appear to be. They are in fact different by the very definition of "speculative"

A speculative rental (aka spec rental) is a room that is booked solely with the intent to rent out and the room (type, date chosen, etc) is chosen specifically to maximize profits as its primary (and really only goal). This can easily and reasonably be seen to be commercial activity and be against the rules as written.

At the same time, members may wish to book that same exact room for their own vacations. Usually because it falls in a popular time and/or that room has a good point value. There will always be overlap like this. Down the road, if that member has something happen (injury, illness, job loss, etc) that prevents them from using that room, and then they decide to rent it out, that would be a confirmed reservation rental, but not a speculative rental. There was no upfront intent to maximize profits (aka speculation) if their original intent was to use the room. Even if they end up renting the room out in the end.

And there definitely are things they could do to combat the first one (speculative rentals) vs the second one (a normal member)

I agree that the intention with the reservation makes a difference.

But how can you, I, Disney or anyone else for that matter decide what my or anyone’s else intentions are with a specific reservation?

 

[Cyberc1978]

Is a merchandise reseller who scalps just enough limited edition pins and ears to pay for their AP not a commercial endeavor?

Only buying items rare/limited in quantity? Check.
Only buying items with intent to resell? Check.
Only buying items with highest ROI? Check.
Only buying items with high demand? Check.

This is why we will never come to a consensus, we can’t agree on personal use.

You and I or anyone else don’t need to come to a consensus about personal use, Disney get to decide that.

Can we agree to the following?: as part of the personal use clause owners are allowed to rent.

Not going into specifics about how much or little renting you can do.

 

[Tatebeck]

I agree that the intention with the reservation makes a difference.

But how can you, I, Disney or anyone else for that matter decide what my or anyone’s else intentions are with a specific reservation?

Because they are allowed to in the contracts we signed. A lot of things are decided "at the discretion" of DVC...

There are plenty of things they could to combat the problem. Some would have to assume the members intent at some point, yes, and some would not.

A series of coincidences clearly becomes less likely each subsequent time it happens. DVC could simply look at a member's reservation history and using other context clues, decide if it looks suspicious or not. This would of course require assuming intent at some point, which they are allowed to per the contracts.
--------
Ex. When a long time member who usually uses the bulk of their points rents out a single cheap studio in early December, they would of course get the benefit of the doubt.

But when a fairly new member who has used all of their points for the last 3 years to book 10 studios in the most popular time of the year in the cheapest studios, and has never stayed in one of them and has rented them out, then obviously that member may be more likely to be considered to be renting commercially and breaking the rules whereas the first member was not. They have to look at more than the individual booking itself to get answers.
----------

Then they could do other things that do not require assuming members intents, but that would affect all reservations. Things like enforcing the verbiage that guests names should be on the reservation (and that members services should be alerted that a guest is a renter) at the time the reservation is made. This would potentially stop lead guest name changes on confirmed reservations to anyone but verified family/friends, and would make the system much less flexible. That is why I would do something else to increase flexibility at the same time if I were DVC and were going to do something like that.

For example they could do something like allow refunding of borrowed points or banking of points past the deadline once per year as part of a reservation cancellation to compensate for this. A normal member would not usually be upset if they for some reason had to cancel a reservation but they were able to bank/refund the points for future use or even to be able to rent out in the future on a non-confirmed reservation. A commercial renting member would probably be upset however.

ETA: They could also simply add more things that members can sink their points into (or give better value for, allow holding points to be used for, etc) instead of having to rent them out. They started doing annual passes recently in addition to cruises, interval international, world collection, etc. Give members more good options or better value for their points and they may not have to/want to rent out points as often.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm not sure why you're being rude, but it's not a quote. Period. And the paraphrasing that has been done to date has been grossly inaccurate, with personal interpretations inserted to reflect what they believe the intent of DVC actually is. Real deal, actual journalists mischaracterize and paraphrase people incorrectly on an hourly basis, so...

I’m sorry but we have quoted the officials and we have shared personal conversations we had with them at the meeting.

Again, feel free to ignore it but to say that what we have shared is wrong? As I said, my own words were words I wrote down at the meeting. And the word “not widespread” was used and so was “not common practice”.

They said that they comprise a small % of all membership reservations. The example they gave for commercial renting was “large point owners” and that they wanted to “stop that”

So, they were direct quotes from that day. Given DVC hasn’t put out offical minutes it’s as offical as we get.

Plus, this was not discussed at every meeting. Go back and read the reports of each individual one. This was discussed only at meetings where owners asked.

The reason my take is different than yours is because I define commercial renting based on how DVC defines it and right now they define it as having more than 20 reservations in a 12 month period. And, until we get a different definition than that is it.

You can believe that commercial renting is a problem but the offical DVC definition defines it only one way and right now, DVc has chosen not to update that document.

Spec renting has never been added to the offical definition so until it is, then it’s an interpretation not a fact is considered commercial in DVCs eyes.

ETA: I have shared my thoughts, opinions and interpretations but have pretty much always made clear that is what they are, which included the impression those of us who left those meeting got from the statements.

Who knows what if anything will happen, but as I said, we have two moves by DVC…one was the language and one was sending me a copy of the current policy.

 

[TCRAIG]

I’m sorry but we have quoted the officials and we have shared personal conversations we had with them at the meeting.

Again, feel free to ignore it but to say that what we have shared is wrong? As I said, my own words were words I wrote down at the meeting. And the word “not widespread” was used and so was “not common practice”.

They said that they comprise a small % of all membership reservations. The example they gave for commercial renting was “large point owners” and that they wanted to “stop that”

So, they were direct quotes from that day. Given DVC hasn’t put out offical minutes it’s as offical as we get.

Plus, this was not discussed at every meeting. Go back and read the reports of each individual one. This was discussed only at meetings where owners asked.

The reason my take is different than yours is because you define commercial renting based on how DVC defines it and right now they define it as having more than 20 reservations in a 12 month period. And, until we get a different definition than that is it.

You can believe that commercial renting is a problem but if it doesn’t match the offical DVC definition and right now, DVc has chosen not to define it differently.

ETA: I have shared my thoughts, opinions and interpretations but have pretty much always made clear that is what they are, which included the impression those of us who left those meeting got from the statements.

Amen and Hallelujah! Thank you Sandisw for always being the voice of reason!

 

[DonMacGregor]

I agree that the intention with the reservation makes a difference.

But how can you, I, Disney or anyone else for that matter decide what my or anyone’s else intentions are with a specific reservation?

My first wild guess would be that the true spec renter has multiple (dozens?) reservations all made at the 11-month window, with the sole purpose of renting for profit. While you, on the other hand, facing your unfortunate bit of bad luck, likely only have one (or maybe 2 if you have multiple reservations for friends, family, etc. traveling on the same trip). One or two reservations versus several dozen reservations just might be within Disney's ability to discern intention.

I'm going to go even out on my tiny little limb, and suggest that Disney is at least capable of discerning between a member losing one or maybe two reservations due to illness, job loss, whatever and being forced to change the lead guest's name, versus someone who has two dozen reservations all made at the 11-month window and changes the lead guest's name on every single one.

It's that pesky "pattern" word that folks seem to happily ignore. Making it about a single hypothetical modified reservation, with easily explained circumstances, and that threatens to hang a virtual scarlet "S" on a member's chest as an evil "Spec Renter", makes for a much better straw man.