Direct Purchase benefits announced!

[maminnie]

I know that many members do use points to cruise. That doesn't change the value proposition going forward. In most cases, it is NOT a good value to pay for cruises with points. Members who buy DVC to cruise, whether it be direct or resale, are making a poor economic choice. IMO, most who buy resale are very rational and have not and will not buy to cruise. So there is no reason to suppose that the resale market will fall.

The value proposition is different for those who have already purchased and occasionally use their points to cruise. They have NOT lost a thing.

I do remember the limitation on cruising (although I think that the main reason the limit was reached at all was due to the cruise incentive DVD offered new purchasers. I do not think the limit will be such an issue in the future unless DVD goes back to that incentive).

Consider this: If resale points are no longer allowed to book cruises, perhaps availability will increase for the grandfathered points and those who purchase direct. The cost of cruising may also go down, since DVC will not have to send so many villas over to CRO to get the $$ to pay for the cruises. Less availability of cash DVC villas means less discounting required to rent them, too.

With all due respect as I realize you are just saying this could be as a result of the change, I am not interested in perks or rule changes that possibly maximize things for me and minimize for others. I am interested in fairness to all members and in the value of my contract being effected by the economy and the supply of direct purchase points and resale points not a new rule instituted by DVC. If life happens to throw me a curve ball like it has thrown to so many of our fellow members over the course of this difficult economy, I would prefer that my contract not plummet in value over the course of the next months or years because of this rediculous new rule. If something else causes it to do so, so be it.

 

[dis-happy]

Looking at the brighter side, Disney could be considered pretty gentle in this whole thing. At least they are treating all current contracts the same, no matter how they were purchased.

When Marriott made a switch last summer, all contracts weren't treated equally. Owners who had purchased resale had to pay a premium to bring their contracts up to the new current program.

 

[CarolMN]

[/B]
...(snip)....I would prefer that my contract not plummet in value over the course of the next months or years because of this rediculous new rule. ......

We will have to agree to disagree. I do not think the value of your contract will plummet due to the change. You do. Time will tell. I'm sure you hope that I am right, though, LOL.

 

[maminnie]

We will have to agree to disagree. I do not think the value of your contract will plummet due to the change. You do. Time will tell. I'm sure you hope that I am right, though, LOL.

I hope you are right and believe me I don't like to be wrong (ask my husband)!!!!

 

[maminnie]

Looking at the brighter side, Disney could be considered pretty gentle in this whole thing. At least they are treating all current contracts the same, no matter how they were purchased.

When Marriott made a switch last summer, all contracts weren't treated equally. Owners who had purchased resale had to pay a premium to bring their contracts up to the new current program.

The unfortunate thing is we have no idea what is next for all us members....direct buyers or resale buyers. As some have said, this is likely just the beginning of something...heaven knows what that might be?????

 

[Deb & Bill]

I don't recall if anyone talked about transfers. But how with this impact a transfer? If you have a direct from DVC contract and transfer in points from a resale, what happens?

 

[LouisianaDisneyFan]

I don't recall if anyone talked about transfers. But how with this impact a transfer? If you have a direct from DVC contract and transfer in points from a resale, what happens?

When I talked with Member Administration about how gratuitous deed changes would be regarded after March 20, I also asked about this issue. I was told that the tracking would remain the same: transferred points retain ALL characteristics of the transferring account... including their booking flexibility. When you request a transfer from someone, if you plan to use the points to book one of the perks in question, you will need to verify if the points were acquired direct, as a resale acquired prior to March 20, or as a resale acquired after March 20. Personally, if I wanted a transfer for a cruise for instance, I would ask for a link to the owner's deed on OCC to check the date and the grantor before sending my payment.

 

[going/again]

The only perk I'd hate to see go is the AP discount. IMO, if they want to differentiate further, they should rearrange eligibility for some of the discounts, too.

So we could yet get not only second class owners, maybe third class too, what good is it keep making owners differant class, where does it stop.

 

[chalee94]

I don't recall if anyone talked about transfers. But how with this impact a transfer? If you have a direct from DVC contract and transfer in points from a resale, what happens?

i'd figure if DVC is tracking the pts separately by contract, they'd know that your transfer can be used to book DVC villas but not combined with other pts for cruising, etc.

does make it more challenging when making sure you are getting the type of transfer that you need, i guess...

All direct buyers should be warned and clearly educated by DVC regarding this issue should they too have to sell in the future. It may make one think more carefully about making that $100 plus per point investment.

i don't think this is DVC's responsibility but it's a good idea if you know someone thinking about buying. knock the pixie dust out of them and remind them that the salesperson smiling at them today and thanking them for buying a piece of the magic will be competing with them if they ever need to sell... and they might not be very "sportsmanlike."

 

[Dean]

We looked at facts, Fact: when we bought DVC was different.

Fact, that has changed, they are now just another timeshare.

Not saying that is a horrible thing, yet.

Judgement on that will be dependent on the next round of changes.

Some things may have changed but there have been no substantial changes to the owned component that was not clearly spelled out in the contractual language.

It really is disturbing to have people over and over tell others that they did not read their contract. For fun I dug out of the back of my closet our notes/files from when we purchased our contracts.

I have an extremely highligted multi-site public offering with question marks in various places and six pages of questions that I asked our guide from condo fee increases, special assessments, what happens if people quit paying their fees, how inheritances are handled, the 252 rule and the 20% rule (bet some of you may not even know about these), condemnation issues (by the way this is on page 77 of the multisite public offering), the land lease (the answer to that is it is paid off), radon gas issues because we received an energy brochure (by the way we were told there were no issues with radon gas), how outstanding liens are handled, square footage of units versus the deluxe Disney hotel rooms, guest responsibility if something is broken, removal of DVC management (for inquiring minds this takes a 60% vote to remove them), etc., etc, etc. And low and behold here is one of the questions, deletion of resorts and the answer was do not anticipate. My guess is that I also discussed with them about changes to vacation opportunities and offerings in general and was likely told do not anticipate. I am a pretty i's dotted t's crossed sort of gal!

As far as condo fees not to ruin anyone's Saturday morning but the maintenance fee increases are close to what we calculated so a 3.93 per point condo fee in 2000 could be 13.22 by the year 2042 at a compounded rate of 3%. Hopefully the Disney central reservation room rate that started at $500 will be my calculated rate of $1013 by 2042 too. (Wanted to share something that might make us all feel better about my first statement.)

So I hope I have convinced some of your that we did do our homework when buying. Our complaints and subsequent passion regarding this change are not about my husband and I believing in magic, pixie dust, fairies, or even in that smiling mouse, it is that we did not believe DVC/Disney would purposely institute a policy that would quite possibly significantly devalue our membership should we have to sell. We felt that any increases or decreases would be because of availability of resales and new direct purchase properties and the state of the economy not Disney/DVC manipulation and greed. We unfortunately assumed that if vacation options and perks were lost it would be the membership as a whole not a specific sub-group designed to negatively impact the members who were once DVC's direct purchasers. I guess that is where we made our mistake.

All direct buyers should be warned and clearly educated by DVC regarding this issue should they too have to sell in the future. It may make one think more carefully about making that $100 plus per point investment.

All buyers (direct or resale) should be aware of the risks that are included. Resale buyers legally assume the same risks and the original owner. However, it is not DVC's or DVD's responsibility to spoon feed the information and they are not going to do so, esp in a way that makes one less likely to purchase. They go over the programs as they stand at that time, they provide the legal paperwork for you to digest. A guide has NO authority and is not an authoritative source on legal matters. Also, the Multi side POS has little protections for members and itself can be changed almost at will by DVD/DVC for most every component. The only real protections and legal guide you have is the home resort POS and the state of FL statutes and rules associated.

By the way, the 20% rules only applies to the unit as a whole (not the smaller components) as some found out with the reallocation, esp at SSR.

Not the only alternative, they could have given more perks to direct owners, taking stuff away was the easy option.

But it was the one that made the most sense. They could have made the changes retroactive all the way back to the first resale buyer, which likely would have been me had I still owned my first contract. Or they could have removed the perks in question for every owner and legitimately stated it was asked for by members because everyone that complains of rentals, cash available but not points and the cost of the cash exchanges is essentially asking for these options to be taken away. Plus as noted by others, putting together a package to separate one from their money likely wasn't possible simply by adding on. There are a LOT of other things that can be taken away and a lot of changes that would be lateral changes that many members would not like.

So why do the adverts say own a peice of the magic, maybe they need to change them to,

Own a piece of the magic .
buy resale not so much

They're advertising direct purchases just like Toyota etc is. You're not seriously saying that you can't tell the difference between advertising and contractual protections are you? I assume you're just trying to be absurd to illustrate, if so, try another one that might work better.

most likely you say, they must have a think tank that could of thought up some ideas to make direct more appealing, rather than making resale owners feel second class, FWIW all our current points are direct, will be buying resale next.

Actually, in a way, resale owners going forward will be second class.

[/B]
With all due respect as I realize you are just saying this could be as a result of the change, I am not interested in perks or rule changes that possibly maximize things for me and minimize for others. I am interested in fairness to all members and in the value of my contract being effected by the economy and the supply of direct purchase points and resale points not a new rule instituted by DVC. If life happens to throw me a curve ball like it has thrown to so many of our fellow members over the course of this difficult economy, I would prefer that my contract not plummet in value over the course of the next months or years because of this rediculous new rule. If something else causes it to do so, so be it.

Then you may want to consider selling now and cutting your losses. This is almost certainly not going to be the last change that you don't like. While you're at it, don't fly on an airline, rent a car, or participate in anyone of thousands of companies/programs with VIP or guest reward type of benefits. To shut yourself off from such business realities would not be practical IMO and to hold Disney to such a standard but not everyone else you deal with makes even less sense.

Looking at the brighter side, Disney could be considered pretty gentle in this whole thing. At least they are treating all current contracts the same, no matter how they were purchased.

When Marriott made a switch last summer, all contracts weren't treated equally. Owners who had purchased resale had to pay a premium to bring their contracts up to the new current program.

And Marriott was still pretty easy on the membership overall compared to Starwood, Bluegreen and Wyndham.

 

[Jason@dvcstore]

Many never read them to know what's actually included (or not).

I would agree that most owners don't know all the rules and regulations regarding their DVC membership.

The "Rule of Four" for example is a rule I don't think many members are familiar with but I could be wrong. I don't think many members complain about this and the resale changes due to hit after 3/20/11 are simply an expansion of this rule in my opinion.

---------

Rule of Four

You cannot book and travel on Disney Collection (excluding Disneyland® Resort in California and Tokyo Disney Resort® hotels), Concierge Collection, and Adventurer Collection vacations within the last four months of your Use Year. However, you can travel in the last four months of your Use Year as long as you've booked your stay more than four months before the end of your Use Year.
-------------

Jason

 

[JimMIA]

That is the exact purpose of the documents. There is even a clause in there about the documents superceding any oral comments by a guide. If it's not in writing, it has no standing.

Many never read them to know what's actually included (or not). It is not Disney's responsibility to educate anyone, it's Disney's responsibility to sell their product. It is the buyers responsibility to understand what they are purchasing - resale included.

This is the part that always cracks me up in this type of discussion. The law contains numerous protections for the consumer, and forces timeshare developers to clearly spell out what they are selling. The law also requires them to make it clear that the only true representations of the product are contained in the POS and the sales contract documents -- and that any verbal representations by sales personnel should NOT be relied upon.

Disney's only obligation to their timeshare customers is to sell their product in accordance with the laws and regulations. DVC sales personnel have an obligation (to their bosses and their families) to present their product in the most favorable light possible and to encourage as many prospects to buy as possible. Neither DVC nor any sales person has any other obligation.

But still, consumers don't read the documents and when confronted with unpleasant reality, say "...but that's not what my guide told me!"

Which proves that there is no amount of consumer-protection law or regulation that will protect folks who simply refuse to be protected.

 

[rinkwide]

...a rule I don't think many members are familiar with...

And now you can forget it as well.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

If one transfers resales points that have been GRANDFATHERED, then the date of purchase must also be verified. They would have to know points passing ROFR prior to March 21 would have the same benefits as direct.

When I talked with Member Administration about how gratuitous deed changes would be regarded after March 20, I also asked about this issue. I was told that the tracking would remain the same: transferred points retain ALL characteristics of the transferring account... including their booking flexibility. When you request a transfer from someone, if you plan to use the points to book one of the perks in question, you will need to verify if the points were acquired direct, as a resale acquired prior to March 20, or as a resale acquired after March 20. Personally, if I wanted a transfer for a cruise for instance, I would ask for a link to the owner's deed on OCC to check the date and the grantor before sending my payment.

 

[Paging Tom Morrow]

In my opinion, this is a brilliant strategy by DVD to increase their profit margin. By removing a perk that most people don't utilize and thereby creating the perception that there are "tiers" of owners, current owners may panic and flood the market with resales of more popular locations (BCV, BWV, VWL). If enough owners decide to sell, the prices will dip based on supply and demand. This will permit DVD to exercise ROFR at a lower price point and resell the more desirable locations at a greater profit.

The bottom line is that DVD is taking nothing away from current owners and very little away from future resale owners. If owners look at this change logically, rather than emotionally, they will realize that.

Just out of curiosity, how did the resale market react when the free length of stay park pass perk was rescinded? I view that as a much greater perk that anything that has subsequently been offered?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I am sometimes amazed at what some Members here think is "okay", simply because the POS only guarantees us a place to sleep.
For crying out loud, would you sit still if the DVC villas were remodeled to look like a sterile prison cell? I mean heck, as long as it had the minimal items as listed in the POS we should all love our cement floor cubicle, and come here to boast about how awesome DVC is because they delivered everything promised in the POS. Of course there are no parks, animals, or anything else that is not specifically guaranteed in the POS, but we all should have expected that to happen when we purchased.
Oh yes.. Perhaps DVC can't charge us for parking because we pay for the lot with dues, but maybe they will put a $10 toll booth on Timberline Drive.

It is the most magical place on Earth.. The benefits disappear right before your eyes!

MG

 

[tjkraz]

I am sometimes amazed at what some Members here think is "okay", simply because the POS only guarantees us a place to sleep.
For crying out loud, would you sit still if the DVC villas were remodeled to look like a sterile prison cell? I mean heck, as long as it had the minimal items as listed in the POS we should all love our cement floor cubicle, and come here to boast about how awesome DVC is because they delivered everything promised in the POS. Of course there are no parks, animals, or anything else that is not specifically guaranteed in the POS, but we all should have expected that to happen when we purchased.
Oh yes.. Perhaps DVC can't charge us for parking because we pay for the lot with dues, but maybe they will put a $10 toll booth on Timberline Drive.

It is the most magical place on Earth.. The benefits disappear right before your eyes!

MG

Before buying there were certain things that I realistically expected/anticipated could happen over a 50 year span. Some variation of tiered benefit program was on the list--as were things like removing perks, reallocating points, changing the booking windows, selling the theme parks, selling the resorts and selling the entire DVC program to another timeshare manager.

Those all fall within my own realistic expectations of what COULD happen.

Just because I'm neither upset nor surprised by this move, don't mistake it for some sort of blanket endorsement that DVC can do whatever they want. Do I put prison cell-like guest rooms in the same category? No, of course not. And if Disney decides to go down that route, it would certainly cause me to reevaluate my ownership.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Before buying there were certain things that I realistically expected/anticipated could happen over a 50 year span. Some variation of tiered benefit program was on the list--as were things like removing perks, reallocating points, changing the booking windows, selling the theme parks, selling the resorts and selling the entire DVC program to another timeshare manager.

Those all fall within my own realistic expectations of what COULD happen.

Just because I'm neither upset nor surprised by this move, don't mistake it for some sort of blanket endorsement that DVC can do whatever they want. Do I put prison cell-like guest rooms in the same category? No, of course not. And if Disney decides to go down that route, it would certainly cause me to reevaluate my ownership.

Tim, you and I are actually in agreement on this. I'm not overly upset (I am a little) about this particular change. That said, many small things over the years are starting to pile up, and everybody has a different breaking point. For some Members this could be the last straw. For me it's not only the changes in DVC, but Disney in general... Everything from getting rid of the winter lights, to closing the Adventurers Club.

I didn't purchase DVC because I wanted a 50 year commitment to vacation in mediocrity. If I wanted that I would have bought some much cheaper off site timeshare.

MG

 

[tjkraz]

Tim, you and I are actually in agreement on this. I'm not overly upset (I am a little) about this particular change. That said, many small things over the years are starting to pile up, and everybody has a different breaking point. For some Members this could be the last straw. For me it's not only the changes in DVC, but Disney in general... Everything from getting rid of the winter lights, to closing the Adventurers Club.

I didn't purchase DVC because I wanted a 50 year commitment to vacation in mediocrity. If I wanted that I would have bought some much cheaper off site timeshare.

MG

As of late, I actually find myself enjoying Disneyland more than Walt Disney World--probably for many of the reasons that you imply. I certainly join those who condemn what the dining plan has done to Disney restaurants and the lack of development at WDW, particularly over the last 2-3 years.

But managerial regimes come and go so hopefully they will see the error of their ways and address those issues sooner rather than later. Harry Potter is our friend.

But in terms of DVC, honestly I'm still hard pressed to see any real decline since we became members. We have new resorts to enjoy with larger, more luxurious accommodations. Older resorts are being retrofitted to include things like the sleeper chairs. (Won't see the OKW refurb first-hand until July so I hate to comment on that one.) Perks are probably a wash at worst--AP discount and free Internet added, valet parking & LOS ticket discount subtracted.

I know some have reported issues with cleanliness, maintenance, room assignments and so on. Fortunately we've been immune from most of that. We've had a broken dishwasher and TV over the years but those were resolved same-day.

Fortunately the program still suits us. If that changes, we'll deal with our points accordingly.

 

[Dean]

Just out of curiosity, how did the resale market react when the free length of stay park pass perk was rescinded? I view that as a much greater perk that anything that has subsequently been offered?

I don't think any of us can say because it was a different situation. It was clearly spelled out contractually that it would go away as of Dec, 1999. There was only a few years remaining, 3 or 4, when the perk was terminated from OKW sales. I don't recall the term date for VB free passes. Also, the internet was still in it's infancy and to a degree, so was DVC at the time so it was a different time that I'm not sure we could translate. For example, my first DVC contract was bought out of USA today classifieds in 1994. I'll be the first to tell you that while I had taken the tour, had a mini version of the POS in my possession (which I read) and investigated what I could; there were still surprises. Enough so that even though I bought resale, DVD agreed to purchase the contract back and make me whole even though it was a resale contract. I don't think they wanted to fight the issue legally because, if they lost (and there's a good chance they would have), it would have cost them a LOT of money beyond the legal defense. I was ready to let them have it back but my wife wanted to proceed so we decided to see what happened. I figured that they had shown good faith in their repurchase offer and thus felt like the ball was in my court. We tried it, felt like it still provided good value overall, and have been members since. I'm pretty confident I could have prevailed in the issue in question as I'm confident I could prevail in another bone of contention I have with them and failure to adhere to the POS, but the end effect wouldn't help anyone and it would simply cost on both sides, something I don't think is appropriate.