Because there is a chance this other model actually sells out the resort faster?
You act like Disney does it the best way and no way to improve it. I would say that is a false claim. Is this better probably not, could aspects be used possibly, who knows.
In theory based on your post they shouldn't offer a previous owner any discount.
In reality they do recognize some of the previous purchase hence why current member incentives start at a lower threshold.
Their pricing model would change for sure though and possibly they remove the direct member pricing all together as an example if they went toward the option I outlined.
All I know in sales is there is always a better way you just are not always aware of it.
You’ve argued repeatedly that Disney is in no rush to sell out Riviera in the absence of an eminent new resort, but suddenly selling out more quickly is a motivator?
Your point was that crediting owners with previous purchases is a model that may help move product more quickly. But doing so would come at the cost of profit, in favor of those expedited sales. My point is that if that owner doesn’t add on that 50 points at a discounted rate, Disney will still sell those points to another buyer at a higher rate with the added benefit of likely having it financed by way of the Mouse’s generous 10%+ rates.
Your reasoning also presupposes that “the best way” is quicker sales is a greater motivator than profit and I would argue otherwise.
Current member incentives above new member prices are nominal. On 200 points bought at Riviera today, the difference is less than 3%. I have to assume, psychologically that’s been shown to motivate enough adding on to not effect the bottom line materially.
What you’re proposing, cumulative purchase benefits extended long term, removes the motivation for someone buying at the moment to just add on enough to bump into the next tier of discounts. It’s like the customer walking off the car lot; bird in the hand and stuff.
My bigger point is that you and Doberge frame any change as incentivizing current owners to buy more. The current mode already incentivizes the buyer to buy more
today. Being allowed to kick the can down the road without consequence falls squarely into the “buyer benefit” column at the expense of Disney getting a sale now, with the added risk of someone having life happen and suddenly realizing, now that they’re no longer in the middle of all the magic, or worse, getting their annual dues bill, that maybe “I’m good for now.”
I’m not saying the current model is “the best way.” I am saying that your proposed model does not benefit Disney’s bottom line. And that framework should be the litmus test for what is an “improvement.”
