Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Cyberc1978]

If DVC thinks you’re stepping over the line it likely isn’t going to be a “tap,” it’s going to be a punch. The “tap” is what is happening right now.

In the past DVC sent letters to owners stepping over the line, what make you think it would be any different now?

 

[lowlight]

Just need to know where the line is so I dont overstep. If I need to be the one to interpret the rules and policies then i'll continue to do what I have always done.

I’ll say what I’ve always said- the only people worried are those that know they are commercial renting. Giving a hard number is the worst thing DVC could do, because that gives cheaters a way to cheat.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I’ll say what I’ve always said- the only people worried are those that know they are commercial renting. Giving a hard number is the worst thing DVC could do, because that gives cheaters a way to cheat.

I'm not worried, since there is no clear red line it would be sort of moot to be worried. I guess some would be worried about renting since they wouldn't know if what they did was wrong or not and therefore would refrain from renting at all - maybe thats what DVC really wants?
Yes I rent some of my points, i've been doing that for years - since I never heard anything from DVC why should I start to think i've done anything wrong now.

My understanding is that if I am tab'ed on the shoulder, im entitled to know what I did to cross the line. Also assuming that they can't brush me off with a "You rented too frequent and too regularly" Just like if you are speeding, the police officer can't say that "You drove too fast thats why i'm giving you a ticket" He needs to tell you that you drove 65 in a 35 zone.

 

[xdan0920]

I’ll say what I’ve always said- the only people worried are those that know they are commercial renting. Giving a hard number is the worst thing DVC could do, because that gives cheaters a way to cheat.

I'd normally agree, but it does seem like people who "never" rent, are quite worried.

 

[RivShore]

If it was my job to count beans at Disney, I would have two conflicting goals (1) crack down on renting as much as possible (because it undermines deluxe resort pricing and likely hurts moderate hotel occupancy as well) and (2) not alienate/infuriate loyal DVC owners who actually use the product for $5k-100k of on site spending (tickets, meals, merch, tours) each year…although it wasn’t my ideal solution, when Sandi was told “you can rent up to the value of total dues” it seemed like a decent enough way to square those two priorities—not a big restriction for people using the majority of their points, but very undesirable for anybody owning DVC as a rental business.

However, what we’re actually seeing so far is no cracking down on commercial renters and a lot of MS interactions and scripts that are offending and/or stressing owner-users who actually use 90% of their points each year…basically the worst of both worlds.

As I posted in one of the other threads, if they wanted to stop commercial renting it could be done this morning - Step 1) Gather ownership records, (2) filter ownership records for LLC's and other corporate entities, (3) look at the number of reservations and the names on each. Different names month after month and year after year = commercial renter. Done!

Now, what's the unintended consequences of giving the boot to thousands and thousands of points - is the resale market flooded? Do the LLC's all declare bankruptcy and tie up the points for years in the courts and then they end up back with DVC, where they may have to fire-sale them? All this may be good for us potential buyers but not so good for the company.

Giving DVC management the benefit of the doubt, I suspect they are taking this more haphazard approach to try and slowly convince the commercial renters to close up shop in a more orderly fashion than all leaving at once.

Or for the more cynical among us, this is all performance theater for the members who have complained about renters sucking up all availability and nothing will change.

 

[Sandisw]

As I posted in one of the other threads, if they wanted to stop commercial renting it could be done this morning - Step 1) Gather ownership records, (2) filter ownership records for LLC's and other corporate entities, (3) look at the number of reservations and the names on each. Different names month after month and year after year = commercial renter. Done!

Now, what's the unintended consequences of giving the boot to thousands and thousands of points - is the resale market flooded? Do the LLC's all declare bankruptcy and tie up the points for years in the courts and then they end up back with DVC, where they may have to fire-sale them? All this may be good for us potential buyers but not so good for the company.

Giving DVC management the benefit of the doubt, I suspect they are taking this more haphazard approach to try and slowly convince the commercial renters to close up shop in a more orderly fashion than all leaving at once.

Or for the more cynical among us, this is all performance theater for the members who have complained about renters sucking up all availability and nothing will change.

We also have to remember that we don’t know what they have done behind the scenes to those who they have identified as renting to the degree it’s commercial.

Just in this thread alone there is a vast majority of opinions on what that even looks like.

What we do know is that they have not made any changes, whether in updated language or practice to what defines commercial. The definition from 2011 is still the offical policy and it could very well be because they themselves feel that is a reasonable threshold to remain in place?

For all we know, they are going after owners who are violating it. I have mentioned that I am not sure that we will see it play out in the market in a big way. DVC won’t be telling us and owners won’t be advertising it.

And maybe DVC has decided not to impact innocent renters?

While changes can still be in the works that we will all notice, they definitely have had plenty of time to do other things.

All we can do now is wait but I would bet based on the way MS is doing things, and saying things that are simply not true, I bet there has been a change in owners behaviors.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I'd normally agree, but it does seem like people who "never" rent, are quite worried.

Personally I prefer to know what is acceptable and unacceptable - thats why we have rules. I also understand with rules you can easily adhere to them, cheat, circumvent etc.

Those saying that if you dont know acceptable from unacceptable then you shouldn't be renting. Thats how DVC works - we are allowed to rent - thats a fact - also a fact that I'm not allowed to do it commercially.

I'd like to stay on the mouse' good side, but I will not stop renting just because the text attached to a checkbox was updated - because renting is allowed. If I rent 1 reservation per year every year. Then i'm bascially renting regularly but am I renting frequently?

Also a fact that DVC gets to decide what frequently and regularly means.

If we are allowed a fixed number of rentals per year, if would be much easier to adhere to and if anyone cheats their way around that, then strike down on those.

But if DVC dont even have the balls to start enforcing NOW, on the LLC' renting, how much enforcement can and will there really be for the regular members?

 

[Cyberc1978]

Now, what's the unintended consequences of giving the boot to thousands and thousands of points - is the resale market flooded? Do the LLC's all declare bankruptcy and tie up the points for years in the courts and then they end up back with DVC, where they may have to fire-sale them? All this may be good for us potential buyers but not so good for the company.

Giving DVC management the benefit of the doubt, I suspect they are taking this more haphazard approach to try and slowly convince the commercial renters to close up shop in a more orderly fashion than all leaving at once.

Or for the more cynical among us, this is all performance theater for the members who have complained about renters sucking up all availability and nothing will change.

If the LLC's declare bankrupcy and if the points would be tied up in court - wouldn't that be a good thing for DVC? That would mean many thousands or even millions of points going unused, which again would mean a lot more breakage for DVC.

If DVC took all of those points back, they would get to use them, sell them or whatever they wanted to do with them - again not a bad thing.

 

[RivShore]

If the LLC's declare bankrupcy and if the points would be tied up in court - wouldn't that be a good thing for DVC? That would mean many thousands or even millions of points going unused, which again would mean a lot more breakage for DVC.

If DVC took all of those points back, they would get to use them, sell them or whatever they wanted to do with them - again not a bad thing.

all possibly true...more unintended...or intended consequences!

 

[lowlight]

Yes I rent some of my points, i've been doing that for years - since I never heard anything from DVC why should I start to think i've done anything wrong now.

That’s 100% the smart move. You definitely shouldn’t change what you’re doing. The smart money is on DVC not enforcing anything, and certainly not enforcing to the degree that you would be affected if you aren’t concerned at present.

 

[RivShore]

two conflicting goals (1) crack down on renting as much as possible (because it undermines deluxe resort pricing and likely hurts moderate hotel occupancy as well) and (2) not alienate/infuriate loyal DVC owners who actually use the product

And I think there is a 3rd conflicting goal - how much is lost if you eliminate DVC renters?

Just pulling numbers out of the air: renters help get your deluxe hotels to 90%+ occupancy almost all year long. What happens when you get rid of all those renters - occupancy drops making the hotel more expensive to operate on a per occupied room basis. Do your deluxe hotels now look like ghost towns? Will you have to lower rates to fill them again? Then merchandise, restaurant, and ticket revenue will also drop. And many of those renters might spend more freely since they know they got a bargain at one of the nicest WDW hotels.

As a shareholder, I love seeing the reported industry leading hotel occupancy rates and the high per guest spending and I'm sure Wall Street loves to see it too. Now this crack down from one small area of the company just negatively impacted the stock price....There are a whole lot of conflicting demands from a corporate point of view.

 

[Sandisw]

Personally I prefer to know what is acceptable and unacceptable - thats why we have rules. I also understand with rules you can easily adhere to them, cheat, circumvent etc.

Those saying that if you dont know acceptable from unacceptable then you shouldn't be renting. Thats how DVC works - we are allowed to rent - thats a fact - also a fact that I'm not allowed to do it commercially.

I'd like to stay on the mouse' good side, but I will not stop renting just because the text attached to a checkbox was updated - because renting is allowed. If I rent 1 reservation per year every year. Then i'm bascially renting regularly but am I renting frequently?

Also a fact that DVC gets to decide what frequently and regularly means.

If we are allowed a fixed number of rentals per year, if would be much easier to adhere to and if anyone cheats their way around that, then strike down on those.

But if DVC dont even have the balls to start enforcing NOW, on the LLC' renting, how much enforcement can and will there really be for the regular members?

I look at it from the lense as someone who doesn’t rent…and I’d have to be a complete idiot to have done the extensive work over the years to be well informed, especially in this area, and open myself up to the review of my accounts to the degree I am sure has happened if I was. DVC knows that my accounts are not being used for renters.

I just want to feel confident that DVC uses appropriate metrics to distinguish between what are rentals and what may be reservations for family and friends, as well as ensure that the threshold that shifts one from appropriate use of the DVC product we bought to an inappropriate makes sense.

All DVC can see when reviewing accounts is that reservations are in others names.

I think that might be playing a role in why DVC hasn’t updated anything in policy or practice.

I’m confident they know what limitations can be done under the definition of “reasonable” and in line with the law.

Even if we assume additional metrics will be used outside of the 2011 policy, maybe the reason it’s not happened is because they want to ensure they aren’t flagging owners and worst case, canceling reservations that are not rentals.

 

[Girlstar30]

I'm going to go ahead and agree with the person that is taking the extra mile to speak directly with DVC and get certified letters.

@Sandisw or anybody do not need to post things they dont feel comfortable with and have a right to express how she interprets things...

I appreciate her telling us parts of what Disney communicated to her as she didnt have to do any of that and it wasnt useless info to everyone.

I was bothered about what the frontline CMs told me because, well, they are frontline CMs interacting with members all day and i find it hard to believe that Disney hasn't gone over with them how to handle questions on commercial renting when they implemented a new checkbox about it.

No rentals to anyone has been relayed to myself and others which is wrong. So now I know thats not true for sure and can move on.

Why i care about this when I haven't rented a single reservation? I would like to buy another contract and if I cant rent out points ever id like to know that before doing so because then I will refrain from purchasing.

We are planning a trip in 2027 that isn't DVC and are strongly considering renting to others. If not allowed, I should be able to know the truth and not want Disney wants us to do being told as the truth. I dont want to break any rules and want to be able to do what is allowed by law and Disney officially

 

[lowlight]

I'm going to go ahead and agree with the person that is taking the extra mile to speak directly with DVC and get certified letters.

@Sandisw or anybody do not need to post things they dont feel comfortable with and have a right to express how she interprets things...

Two things can be true at once-

1) Sandi owes nobody a thing. She did the legwork. She can post what she feels comfortable with. If anyone wants to see the whole thing, they are able to do the same legwork.

2) In the absence of the whole body of evidence, you cannot use bits and pieces of the documents as proof that you are right and everyone else is wrong in their interpretation. That is quite literally called "cherry picking".

and-

2a) I believe absolutely nothing, zero, zip that I do not see with my own eyes. That goes for everything in every aspect of my life, not just here.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I'd normally agree, but it does seem like people who "never" rent, are quite worried.

I would say there are two rough buckets of “never” rent—(1) those who in fact have never rented a point in the past and feel reasonably confident they will die never needing to cancel a reservation inside a month and/or are happy to just eat the 15-1500 points from the cancellation and (2) those of us who would prefer to always use points ourselves and in fact do use 95-99.9% of our points ourselves but have hectic lives (or are simply more aware of what could go wrong) and want the ability to salvage some value of their points if they ever need to travel towards the end of their UY or a catastrophe strikes a week before their trip starts.

A lot of big renters aren’t concerned at all and some of us “almost never” renters are worried simply because we have different risk tolerances…but if the 2011 policy gets enforced that you can get locked out after 20 if you have even a single rental but someone else can rent 20 times without ever staying, those of us who spend the most at Disney are likely to get burned eventually.

And I think there is a 3rd conflicting goal - how much is lost if you eliminate DVC renters?

Just pulling numbers out of the air: renters help get your deluxe hotels to 90%+ occupancy almost all year long. What happens when you get rid of all those renters - occupancy drops making the hotel more expensive to operate on a per occupied room basis.

I think this is a major misunderstanding of how hotel occupancy works. The DVC private rental numbers are not considered in hotel occupancy and Disney does not make any profit from their stay (beyond what they spend in the parks and around the resort, just like any other offsite guest). The renters also don’t contribute to maintenance costs, it’s covered in our dues, whether anybody shows up or not. Instead, DVC renters pull occupancy down for all the individuals who would rather pay a spec renter $325/night at BWV instead of paying Disney $450 for BWI or $300 for Pop Century. Sure some might not travel at all or maybe they buy fewer lightening lanes or table service meals, but many will come and actually contribute to profit Disney hotel division profits by booking directly.

 

[Mouseforward]

The renters also don’t contribute to maintenance costs, it’s covered in our dues, whether anybody shows up or not.

That’s not a real argument against renting since the same could be said by an owner occupying the room.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I would say there are two rough buckets of “never” rent—(1) those who in fact have never rented a point in the past and feel reasonably confident they will die never needing to cancel a reservation inside a month and/or are happy to just eat the 15-1500 points from the cancellation and (2) those of us who would prefer to always use points ourselves and in fact do use 95-99.9% of our points ourselves but have hectic lives (or are simply more aware of what could go wrong) and want the ability to salvage some value of their points if they ever need to travel towards the end of their UY or a catastrophe strikes a week before their trip starts.

A lot of big renters aren’t concerned at all and some of us “almost never” renters are worried simply because we have different risk tolerances…but if the 2011 policy gets enforced that you can get locked out after 20 if you have even a single rental but someone else can rent 20 times without ever staying, those of us who spend the most at Disney are likely to get burned eventually.

Agree. All I am seeing is commercial renters going about business as usual but Im over here afraid because I had a few rentals. In a 12 month rolling period I used over 1700 points on reservations and 170 of those 1700 were for a rental. I also have 19 reservations in a rolling 12 month period.

When all of this came about I was completely on board with DVC being vague so commercial renters didn't know the parameters to skate around. But the direction this has taken with the things MS is telling members has me uneasy. Just how you have pointed out what happened with DAS, this seems similar. Regardless of what the POS says is technically allowed, if the frontline MS who has to assist in facilitating my membership are telling me something I am going to assume they aren't just misleading. DVC really needs to step up to the plate and do something about MS. It is creating a bad look for DVC, and to the previous poster YES a lot of people care.

 

[RivShore]

I think this is a major misunderstanding of how hotel occupancy works. The DVC private rental numbers are not considered in hotel occupancy and Disney does not make any profit from their stay (beyond what they spend in the parks and around the resort, just like any other offsite guest). The renters also don’t contribute to maintenance costs, it’s covered in our dues, whether anybody shows up or not. Instead, DVC renters pull occupancy down for all the individuals who would rather pay a spec renter $325/night at BWV instead of paying Disney $450 for BWI or $300 for Pop Century. Sure some might not travel at all or maybe they buy fewer lightening lanes or table service meals, but many will come and actually contribute to profit Disney hotel division profits by booking directly.

I had always assumed WDW's high occupancy rates were pumped up by DVC, that they consistently hit those high rates without DVC is pretty amazing.

 

[muppets3d]

And I think there is a 3rd conflicting goal - how much is lost if you eliminate DVC renters?

Just pulling numbers out of the air: renters help get your deluxe hotels to 90%+ occupancy almost all year long. What happens when you get rid of all those renters - occupancy drops making the hotel more expensive to operate on a per occupied room basis. Do your deluxe hotels now look like ghost towns? Will you have to lower rates to fill them again? Then merchandise, restaurant, and ticket revenue will also drop. And many of those renters might spend more freely since they know they got a bargain at one of the nicest WDW hotels.

As a shareholder, I love seeing the reported industry leading hotel occupancy rates and the high per guest spending and I'm sure Wall Street loves to see it too. Now this crack down from one small area of the company just negatively impacted the stock price....There are a whole lot of conflicting demands from a corporate point of view.

The DVC resorts are maintained with our membership dues. Those dues are paid on a per-point basis by every owner of that resort, and those dues are paid whether those points are used at that resort, exchanged into a different resort or a cruise etc., or allowed to expire. So the resort is maintained no matter what happens, so it's simply not correct to try to correlate renting with making our resorts cheaper to maintain.

DVC resorts are timeshare villas, they are not hotels, so hotel occupancy doesn't really matter. DVC sells enough points to fill every room to capacity year-round (minus a percentage they hold back for maintenance and other needs), so the fact that every room is full pretty much every night isn't something that should be some big revelation to people. It's how the system is designed to work.

 

[Girlstar30]

Two things can be true at once-

1) Sandi owes nobody a thing. She did the legwork. She can post what she feels comfortable with. If anyone wants to see the whole thing, they are able to do the same legwork.

2) In the absence of the whole body of evidence, you cannot use bits and pieces of the documents as proof that you are right and everyone else is wrong in their interpretation. That is quite literally called "cherry picking".

and-

2a) I believe absolutely nothing, zero, zip that I do not see with my own eyes. That goes for everything in every aspect of my life, not just here.

She read the whole body of evidence and came to the conclusion that she did.

Since im not going to read it and neither are most, im going to believe that someone that read it, interpreted it, spoke to lawyers, and who I believe is intelligent, knowledgeable of DVC, and trustworthy based on my experiences with purchasing from her travel agency park tickets smoothly, that she knows more of whats going on that anyone else has provided thus far. I believe that she can interpret that thing better than I can and I will consider what she says before purchasing.

I know she has good intentions and doesnt deserve to be accused of purposely spreading misinformation. She believes what she is saying and has stated why multiple times. Others dont have to believe her, but someone such as myself looks to her for information as she has been on this board for years and and I appreciate her fact finding.

I dont believe she is cherry picking, but rather posted what she wrote based on what she learned and to post clarification to some people's questions.

People were going back and forth on here whether renting to only family and friends is allowed and worried about it and she got paperwork that it was allowed straight from the horses mouth. She certainly gathered the information I was looking for.

She has told people multiple times from the beginning of these commercial renting posts, including myself, who didnt like what she was saying which was that commercial renting rules need to be interpreted for myself because i didnt want to accept the vagueness of Disney doing it this way. She is not saying that what she thinks is the end all be all.