Did point values change?

[gls8376]

I was always under the impression that the point values could not change. I guess I haven't been paying attention, but I noticed that a week at a Treehouse Villa in May 2012 is 285 points, For a week at a Treehouse Villa in May 2013 it's 329 points. Don't get me wrong, I knew point values could be adjusted, for example when they raised points for a weeknight and lowered them for a weekend, but in the end I thought the value for a week was supposed to be maintained, ensuring that the value from year to year was maintained.

 

[JKMJ441724]

I was always under the impression that the point values could not change. I guess I haven't been paying attention, but I noticed that a week at a Treehouse Villa in May 2012 is 285 points, For a week at a Treehouse Villa in May 2013 it's 329 points. Don't get me wrong, I knew point values could be adjusted, for example when they raised points for a weeknight and lowered them for a weekend, but in the end I thought the value for a week was supposed to be maintained, ensuring that the value from year to year was maintained.

My understanding was that the total number of points per year could not change. They can adjust weeks however, just so long as they maintain the total for the year.

I usually go in October and I've noticed changes in the amount of points for my week have been offset with changes in peak season. So, your May trip increase is offsetting a decreased number of points at SSRS for some other week of the year.

 

[dburg30]

I'm sure if you really look you will find lower point requirements at different times of the year, different accommodation levels etc etc. There are IMO WAY too many DVC experts that would catch something like that..

 

[vicki_c]

They did increase the points for the Treehouses. Those increases were offset by decreases in other SSR categories.

The value for any particular week, room type, etc. does not have to stay the same. The TOTAL points at the resort have to stay the same.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Total points at an entire resort cannot change but they can redistribute what is required for a stay across villa sizes, views, seasons etc.

 

[chalee94]

...in the end I thought the value for a week was supposed to be maintained, ensuring that the value from year to year was maintained.

look again at the SSR (non-THV) pt charts for 2013 compared to 2012 and you'll find that year-to-year value was maintained.

 

[zavandor]

The total number of points during the whole year for the whole resort cannot change.
They increasead the cost of the THV while lowering a bit the cost of 2br.

Fot BLT, they changed the view category of some room from Theme Park to Standard, so lowering a lot the points requirements for those rooms. As a consequence point requirement for other rooms went up. So in the charts you only see numbers gone up, but the whole resort stayed the same.

 

[drusba]

The reality is that they raised the point cost for THVs approximately 15% for every week of the entire year. In other words, there was no offsetting decrease as to THV itself. Instead, they decreased the points required for all other SSR rooms by a small percentage. Since there are 828 SSR rooms (counting 2BR lock-offs as one) compared to 60 THVs, the percentage decrfease needed for the other SSR rooms to absorb the increase in THV points, and keep total points the same, was small.

 

[tjkraz]

Since there are 828 SSR rooms (counting 2BR lock-offs as one) compared to 60 THVs, the percentage decrfease needed for the other SSR rooms to absorb the increase in THV points, and keep total points the same, was small.

True but it also means that 828 parties will benefit from the adjustment vs. the 60 who will not.

Given the popularity of the treehouse villas, it's hard to argue against such a change.

 

[Dean]

The reality is that they raised the point cost for THVs approximately 15% for every week of the entire year. In other words, there was no offsetting decrease as to THV itself. Instead, they decreased the points required for all other SSR rooms by a small percentage. Since there are 828 SSR rooms (counting 2BR lock-offs as one) compared to 60 THVs, the percentage decrfease needed for the other SSR rooms to absorb the increase in THV points, and keep total points the same, was small.

This is one of the problems/benefits of the THV being included in SSR rather than being a separate resort. Maint for the THV over time is certain to be far more than the rest of the resort even for a 3 BR, so the fees for the THV are certainly far less, now and in the future, than they would have been otherwise. Likely to the point of making VB the second highest dues otherwise.

 

[DougEMG]

I wonder why Disney increased the point cost of the THV after SSR was sold out. Would it not have made more sense for them to originally have declared the THV at the that higher point cost so they had more SSR points to sell as each villa was added on?

 

[wdrl]

I wonder why Disney increased the point cost of the THV after SSR was sold out. Would it not have made more sense for them to originally have declared the THV at the that higher point cost so they had more SSR points to sell as each villa was added on?

Once DVD set the size and number of Treehouse Villas, it was legally obligated to add about 905,250 points -- no more and no less -- to SSR's grand total of DVC points. Since the THVs were being added to an existing Condominium Association, DVD was legally obligated to follow the square footage-to-real estate interest ownership interest ratio already established for SSR.

According to unofficial estimates I have found on the web, a two-bedroom villa at SSR is about 1,075 sf and a THV is about 1,074 sf. Thus, their points values are very similar. I have never seen the official SSR point ratios, but based on calculations from the Orange County Comptroller I place an SSR two-bedroom Unit at 15,225 points and a THV Unit (which has two THV vacation homes) at 30,175 points.

Even if DVD knew it could sell more points at SSR, it could only have done that by increasing the relative size of the THVs. Or by making the THVs its own Condo Association, in which case a brand new square footage-to-real estate interest ownership interest ratio could have been established.

 

[disneynutz]

I wonder why Disney increased the point cost of the THV after SSR was sold out. Would it not have made more sense for them to originally have declared the THV at the that higher point cost so they had more SSR points to sell as each villa was added on?

I'm guessing it was another marketing decision. The Guides used the line that buying SSR was a great value because you could book a 3 bedroom THV for the same rate as a 2 bedroom at SSR. Once sold out, they raised the point requirements for the THV.

The pattern tends to repeat itself, keep the dues of actively selling proprieties low, then raise them when sold out. Offer something extra at the selling resorts, TOTWL, a mixer at AKV, THV at the same points as a 2 bedroom. Once sold out, all that changes.

Their argument that they raised the point requirement due to the popularity of THV escapes me. The longer that I sit and watch the DVC show, the more I'm convinced that they will do what's good for Disney while tossing the DVC owners just enough cookies to say that they gave us something.

What would it really take to make the DVC a first class operation with no games, clean well kept rooms and 5 star service?

Bill

 

[DougEMG]

Once DVD set the size and number of Treehouse Villas, it was legally obligated to add about 905,250 points -- no more and no less -- to SSR's grand total of DVC points. Since the THVs were being added to an existing Condominium Association, DVD was legally obligated to follow the square footage-to-real estate interest ownership interest ratio already established for SSR.

According to unofficial estimates I have found on the web, a two-bedroom villa at SSR is about 1,075 sf and a THV is about 1,074 sf. Thus, their points values are very similar. I have never seen the official SSR point ratios, but based on calculations from the Orange County Comptroller I place an SSR two-bedroom Unit at 15,225 points and a THV Unit (which has two THV vacation homes) at 30,175 points.

Even if DVD knew it could sell more points at SSR, it could only have done that by increasing the relative size of the THVs. Or by making the THVs its own Condo Association, in which case a brand new square footage-to-real estate interest ownership interest ratio could have been established.

That makes sense, thanks.

 

[Dean]

I wonder why Disney increased the point cost of the THV after SSR was sold out. Would it not have made more sense for them to originally have declared the THV at the that higher point cost so they had more SSR points to sell as each villa was added on?

Timeshare like simplicity. Having the points the same as the 2 BR provided that. I doubt they went in to this planning to reallocate later purposefully but the demand likely was higher than they expected. IMO, the benefits to the owners of having the THV combined into SSR far outweigh the negatives but this is one of the potential negatives realized. I'm sure they would have declared them at a higher level had they felt that was needed, more points = more profit.