Disney seems to be full everywhere during the week

[Dean]

Actually Dean, I feel completely the opposite way, it might be voluntary but "owners" and shareholders should demand better of these executives. Anyone with a 401k is affected by these decisions, and now that pensions are pretty much gone in this country, a 401k is the only instrument to save for your retirement besides a bed mattress.

The point is that executives only worried about boosting a company's quarterly stock price isn't looking long turn to increase the real value of a company. Warren Buffet talks a lot about this. If Disney loses their costumer base to short sighted decisions it could costs DVC owners more in the long run because we are locked in for 50 years and will have to pay for the up keeep.

But, I'm really glad that I found Disboards and members like yourself that have a great knowledge of the DVC system and are keeping a close watch on the mouse.

But how are you going to demand it? How are you going to police it proactively? Unless you're going to go hang out with the top level administration on a routine basis and go over real data consistently, anything else will slip by or be after the fact at best. Even then legal intervention is really the only true tool. Again, we should be vigilant but your and Bill's post are, in effect, they are already a bunch of crooks but simply haven't been taken to task yet in a way that has teeth.

 

[ziravan]

But how are you going to demand it? How are you going to police it proactively? Unless you're going to go hang out with the top level administration on a routine basis and go over real data consistently, anything else will slip by or be after the fact at best. Even then legal intervention is really the only true tool. Again, we should be vigilant but your and Bill's post are, in effect, they are already a bunch of crooks but simply haven't been taken to task yet in a way that has teeth.

I think this line is very grey and can't be so easily drawn.

I don't think they're crooks, but they've certainly been ham-handed.

The bottom line is that, even indexed for inflation, DVC eventually discovered that OKW was horribly underpriced to what the market would bear.

So. They set off on a decade(s) long venture to find that limit.

I believe they found it at about $155/point, where Poly is selling well with current incentives. (As opposed to $171 where sales were obviously not what they wanted.)

But a decade (or two) of constant, rapid, and high price increases has taken its toll on management. They've bought into the quick fixes to maintain ever higher prices. As a result, they are in great danger of overshooting the goal of finding a good price for a great product.

I believe DVC is making several key mistakes in its current quest to push the price ever higher when the original goal should have been finding the right price because there should be a balance between price and sells. Instead, it seems management got caught up with finding new gimmicks to raise prices just because it's good for their annual review.

The limit to price elasticity goes both ways.

 

[ziravan]

Just to tie in the last thought, DVC thought Poly would be a massive sell to current owners but many owners balked at no 1 or traditional 2 BRs.

In politics, you don't spend $100 million on a race to move the needle by 50%; you do so to move the needle 5%. Same here in that DVC has come to depend on current owners to push their margins. There's always the market of Disney guests high on pixie dust, but current owners were the oomph that put sells over the top.

I think DVC was caught off guard about the lack of interest by current owners in a Poly without 1 and 2 BRs.

This is why there are 2 incentives right now, with a higher incentive for current owners. And the resale limits might be a sales pitch on property, but it's major thrust was aimed at people like YOU, current owner and Disboards reader.

And now, reallocation. If DVC is more concerned about pushing the sales margins on current owners (and that to me explains much of their recent behavior), then any reallocation comes at great risk of further alienating that subset of buyers.

A new buyer unfamiliar with the product won't immediately understand the implications of reallocation. But. You will.

At any point in the process, the fear of alienating current owners as add on buyers would likely outweigh the benefit of current owners for a reallocation. Especially since any benefit to some owners would be seen as a detriment to others: it'd be a wash.

Even if DVC waits until Poly sells out to reallocate Poly, how does that affect VWL2 sales?

And reallocating Fall Frenzy and sending owners everywhere into an angry mob that won't give in to addonitis?

Forget about it.

 

[crisi]

I think DVC was caught off guard about the lack of interest by current owners in a Poly without 1 and 2 BRs.

For years on this board, many many people waited for the Poly. Its a fan favorite hotel. We basically told any DVC exec who opened this board "build whatever at the Poly, and we will hand you money."

Turns out, we did have a limit on how much money we'd hand over and what we wanted.

 

[Dean]

I think this line is very grey and can't be so easily drawn.

I don't think they're crooks, but they've certainly been ham-handed.

The bottom line is that, even indexed for inflation, DVC eventually discovered that OKW was horribly underpriced to what the market would bear.

So. They set off on a decade(s) long venture to find that limit.

I believe they found it at about $155/point, where Poly is selling well with current incentives. (As opposed to $171 where sales were obviously not what they wanted.)

But a decade (or two) of constant, rapid, and high price increases has taken its toll on management. They've bought into the quick fixes to maintain ever higher prices. As a result, they are in great danger of overshooting the goal of finding a good price for a great product.

I believe DVC is making several key mistakes in its current quest to push the price ever higher when the original goal should have been finding the right price because there should be a balance between price and sells. Instead, it seems management got caught up with finding new gimmicks to raise prices just because it's good for their annual review.

The limit to price elasticity goes both ways.

IMO, as they should have. And I would have the same answer on differentiating resale vs retail when it comes to non contractual options/perks, they should. A VIP system would also be reasonable and would also require qualified points. I can think of lots of things that they could have done differently and some they likely should have though obviously we don't have all the info. I can think of a few things where ONE possible explanation is they made decisions purposefully for their benefit at the expense of others where it was questionable such as the THV being included in SSR with the subsequent reallocation. I don't put the Poly bungalows into that category though it comes on the table as one explanation if (? when) they reallocate. I would agree they've often been overly optimistic at times and that VB & HH are key examples.

Your saying they've been incompetent, while I think that's going a little too far but I can at least see that opinion. Here are a few things I can see in that direction, maybe there are others. But I don't think any of them or even all in total truly justify the incompetent label.

• They made mistakes with Aulani, they handled it well on recovery.
• They instituted a reallocation at BLT during the sales process but gave those who bought before the change an out.
• They included THV in SSR then promptly reallocated.
• They've had several refurbishment issues and subsequent relocations that were handled poorly, mostly because they started too late and left it up to the resorts to handle it rather than doing it themselves.
• The OKW extension was handled poorly and IMO, they don't have the legal or POS authority to enforce the threatened SA.
• The Poly design and villa designations certainly are puzzling though only having a portion of the information skews the answers.

But here's the thing. We all made the choice to participate and accept their management and since DVC has some liquidity, no one has to continue to be a member. That's not to say some things shouldn't change or that members shouldn't lobby for changes or to blindly accept things that are overly questionable. And while I'm all for discussing those here, it really doesn't change anything. IMO anyone who thinks they're crooks, or even completely incompetent, has no business continuing to be a member long term unless they're going to actively work to change those things by getting directly involved with management likely bringing lawyers into the mix.

 

[ziravan]

IMO, as they should have. And I would have the same answer on differentiating resale vs retail when it comes to non contractual options/perks, they should. A VIP system would also be reasonable and would also require qualified points. I can think of lots of things that they could have done differently and some they likely should have though obviously we don't have all the info. I can think of a few things where ONE possible explanation is they made decisions purposefully for their benefit at the expense of others where it was questionable such as the THV being included in SSR with the subsequent reallocation. I don't put the Poly bungalows into that category though it comes on the table as one explanation if (? when) they reallocate. I would agree they've often been overly optimistic at times and that VB & HH are key examples.

Your saying they've been incompetent, while I think that's going a little too far but I can at least see that opinion. Here are a few things I can see in that direction, maybe there are others. But I don't think any of them or even all in total truly justify the incompetent label.

• They made mistakes with Aulani, they handled it well on recovery.
• They instituted a reallocation at BLT during the sales process but gave those who bought before the change an out.
• They included THV in SSR then promptly reallocated.
• They've had several refurbishment issues and subsequent relocations that were handled poorly, mostly because they started too late and left it up to the resorts to handle it rather than doing it themselves.
• The OKW extension was handled poorly and IMO, they don't have the legal or POS authority to enforce the threatened SA.
• The Poly design and villa designations certainly are puzzling though only having a portion of the information skews the answers.

But here's the thing. We all made the choice to participate and accept their management and since DVC has some liquidity, no one has to continue to be a member. That's not to say some things shouldn't change or that members shouldn't lobby for changes or to blindly accept things that are overly questionable. And while I'm all for discussing those here, it really doesn't change anything. IMO anyone who thinks they're crooks, or even completely incompetent, has no business continuing to be a member long term unless they're going to actively work to change those things by getting directly involved with management likely bringing lawyers into the mix.

I agree with most of what you say except that I don't think DVC is incompetent. Far from it! I think they're being too aggressive in trying to build their price point to the point of inelasticity as evidenced by having to discount Poly (something not done for VGF).

I think there is a uniqueness about DVC that they put in serious danger when trying to be like every other timeshare. DVC's claim to fame is that they're different, they're Disney! Fine. Then act different. Be Disney.

My critique isn't that I want out of DVC. Far from it! We love our DVC contracts and want them to retain their uniqueness. I own Wyndham points, but that's just another timeshare.

Maybe DVC is just another timeshare, too. But that's as depressing as it is unnecessary. Being Disney has its own value that gives DVC more than enough branding to stay different. If it wants to be different.

So far as mistakes made, that's not incompetence. Predicting the future is just that. Predictions can be wrong. Even where some suspect that DVC might be making moves predictive of its own advantage (using bungalows for breakage for example), that's not incompetence. I won't even say that's wrong:

Breakage is part of the "composition of payments" that DVC brings to Disney. I knew that when I bought in. If DVC gives more than passing consideration to how breakage will work in its planning, that's due diligence. They would be incompetent if they didn't consider that. How far they push on that string is the grey line.

 

[Dean]

I agree with most of what you say except that I don't think DVC is incompetent. Far from it! I think they're being too aggressive in trying to build their price point to the point of inelasticity as evidenced by having to discount Poly (something not done for VGF).

I think there is a uniqueness about DVC that they put in serious danger when trying to be like every other timeshare. DVC's claim to fame is that they're different, they're Disney! Fine. Then act different. Be Disney.

My critique isn't that I want out of DVC. Far from it! We love our DVC contracts and want them to retain their uniqueness. I own Wyndham points, but that's just another timeshare.

Maybe DVC is just another timeshare, too. But that's as depressing as it is unnecessary.

So far as mistakes made, that's not incompetence. Predicting the future is just that. Predictions can be wrong. Even where some suspect that DVC might be making moves predictive of its own advantage (using bungalows for breakage for example), that's not incompetence. I won't even say that's wrong:

Breakage is part of the "composition of payments" that DVC brings to Disney. I knew that when I bought in. If DVC gives more than passing consideration to how breakage will work in its planning, that's due diligence. They would be incompetent if they didn't consider that.

Maybe I took your listing of them being ham handed too literally, my view is that IS staying THEY ARE INCOMPETENT. Personally I think DVC is JUST ANOTHER TIMESHARE, it just happens to be at WDW. I do think Marriott and Hilton run a better ship and in some ways, so does Bluegreen, Worldmark and Wyndham that I have some experience with. Personally I don't think things are going to change as much as they'll just evolve. So I clearly think they could do better in some ways. Personally I think where they can improve is in the day to day operations at the resort level and I feel this is where they dramatically lag the other companies I mentioned. Do they do it poorly, maybe not, but they certainly could do better. The sad part for those issues is it really isn't any more costly or difficult to do so than it is to do it poorly. If one wants to point to lack of leadership with DVC, that's where one should hang their hat, IMO and I feel it's a more than fair criticism.

 

[Deb & Bill]

IMO non of the issues Bill mentioned really move the needle currently, only SSR has been a big mover historically. The points at off site resorts were always more about WDW at the 7 month window than anything else, no change there. The SSR points already exist in the system and are already being used more at the 7 month window than the other WDW resorts, no change there recently. Historically members have always figured out really what they want after the fact, that's one of the reasons I'm anti new members buying the high end options. I doubt this is any different than historically, if anything, it may be better. Spreading out demand can only help overall but might hurt a given person or situation. I don't think lost points was ever a big issue for DVC but it has happened some and will cont to to so, I doubt it's much different but it could have changed a little as there are other options available now that easier than years ago. What should happen is that higher demand properties will be more difficult at 7 months. Those that own at a high end resort (that's their preference and should be if they bought there), will go on the wait list for other high end options but keep what they have if they don't match. The issue is that volume doesn't help or hurt. It's really a system that can be made worse but not really better unless the demand of SSR is increased significantly and I don't think Disney Springs or the booking category change will effect this enough to matter. The points from one 2 BR at SSR likely has as more effect on the system in terms of the 7 month window as the entire VGF resort has/will. My view is that in the absence of massive high end volume and without addition of another low demand option, we have what we have with minor variations based on maintenance and the like. I do agree there has been a trick down effect pushing those that historically have waited back all the way to their 11 month window (and beyond) in some cases and I believe that's mostly due to the affect of SSR points on the system, that should have played itself out by now. The other issue is we'll likely see some shift over time as demand rises and falls for a given time, with or without a reallocation. In the end it really doesn't matter what the average is or the overall demand, it's how it affects your or I that we'll all care about.

You really don't like SSR, do you, Dean.

 

[Dean]

You really don't like SSR, do you, Dean.

Actually I like it just fine, you're missing the point unless you're just needling me. There are 2 issues here. Liking and being happy at the resort and the real effect on the system. They are 2 completely different issues, just like timeshare sales and timeshare management are. The fact is it's a nice resort but it has a lower demand than the rest of the WDW DVC resorts. OKW is higher demand due to the lower points, if they were the same points, OKW would be the lowest. But it came on as an addition to the system and with dramatic effects on the system. I don't think there's enough they will do, or likely could do, to raise it's demand to that of the average were it not in the system, roughly that of BWV or VWL. For me personally I'm happy for them to even create a large truly moderate resort and add it to the system but I don't think most would be. Most of our stays at WDW over the past 15 years have been at OKW, AKV and SSR on exchanges even though we've owned as many as 885 points.

 

[disneynutz]

But how are you going to demand it? How are you going to police it proactively? Unless you're going to go hang out with the top level administration on a routine basis and go over real data consistently, anything else will slip by or be after the fact at best. Even then legal intervention is really the only true tool. Again, we should be vigilant but your and Bill's post are, in effect, they are already a bunch of crooks but simply haven't been taken to task yet in a way that has teeth.

To clarify, I don't think that they are a bunch of crooks, I think that they are a company that has proven to put themselves first and that they do an excellent job of convincing the public otherwise. Their primary focus is increasing profit and due to the pressure of making their required numbers they can make poor decisions and sometimes they go too far.

History has proven that with the DVC, sales is their focus and the majority of their attention is placed there. MS is on autopilot, website not that important, resales, you are a second class citizen who is made to wait 90 days to close, and for the seller, Disney now collects the maximum allowed $150 estoppel fee for 5 minutes of work. $95 fee to trade out and membership magic events only available to the preferred people, but they have to pay to attend most of them. The VP over DVD and DVC now has ABD and Golden Oak to manage as well. Do you really think that he is focused on the DVC that doesn't make the company money or is he focused on DVD, ABD and Golden Oak business units that makes the company millions of dollars?

Bill

 

[Brian Noble]

OKW is higher demand due to the lower points, if they were the same points, OKW would be the lowest.

With the new Standard/Preferred points structure in place at SSR, we'll get a chance to see whether this is so: If SSR-Standard books before OKW does, that would confirm your hypothesis.

Personally, I'm not so sure. OKW's units are also larger and better equipped for the stated occupancy vs. SSR, so even at equal points, SSR may not outdraw OKW. The proximity to the newly-refreshed Disney Springs and better pools at SSR might tip the balance the other way though. Time will tell.

 

[Dean]

With the new Standard/Preferred points structure in place at SSR, we'll get a chance to see whether this is so: If SSR-Standard books before OKW does, that would confirm your hypothesis.

Personally, I'm not so sure. OKW's units are also larger and better equipped for the stated occupancy vs. SSR, so even at equal points, SSR may not outdraw OKW. The proximity to the newly-refreshed Disney Springs and better pools at SSR might tip the balance the other way though. Time will tell.

Obviously there are differences in favor of each. My premise is that at the same point structure OKW would have a similar or lower demand overall. Certainly if SSR standard consistently books up before OKW that would be suggestive of my point but the reverse isn't true partly because it's only part of the resort and partly because it's still more for the standard view SSR compared to OKW. Also, HH & historically VB have been as low or lower as well but SSR was additive to the system, the same could be said for OKW as well. Ultimately it doesn't much matter which is higher or lower if they're under the average, the effect is still the same and really if they're under the average for the other DVC resorts at WDW other than those 2.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

it's still more for the standard view SSR compared to OKW. Also, HH & historically VB have been as low or lower as well but SSR was additive to the system, the same could be said for OKW as well..

It varies thru out the year. Some times it's a point or two more but other times it's now less than OKW. And other's it will be identical.

 

[Bell30012]

I booked during the same time frame as the OP. I booked 10/10 - 10/15 at the 7 month booking window. I did not have any difficulty finding availability Monday - Saturday. However, I really wanted to start the week on Sunday but that day was impossible at the resort we picked, Poly. However, I checked online the night before last and was able to get the Sunday night at Poly.

We visit WDW a week in October each year and have always been able to get a reservation through DVC. We've stayed at BLT, AKL, OKW, and SSR all booked at the 7 month window. That is just the day you have to wake up early and be ready for online booking.​

 

[Dean]

To clarify, I don't think that they are a bunch of crooks, I think that they are a company that has proven to put themselves first and that they do an excellent job of convincing the public otherwise. Their primary focus is increasing profit and due to the pressure of making their required numbers they can make poor decisions and sometimes they go too far.

History has proven that with the DVC, sales is their focus and the majority of their attention is placed there. MS is on autopilot, website not that important, resales, you are a second class citizen who is made to wait 90 days to close, and for the seller, Disney now collects the maximum allowed $150 estoppel fee for 5 minutes of work. $95 fee to trade out and membership magic events only available to the preferred people, but they have to pay to attend most of them. The VP over DVD and DVC now has ABD and Golden Oak to manage as well. Do you really think that he is focused on the DVC that doesn't make the company money or is he focused on DVD, ABD and Golden Oak business units that makes the company millions of dollars?

Bill

Bill, if you believe they purposefully made any of the points off for sales purposes (THV, Poly), shirk their responsibility to reallocate if the information is clear unless it benefits them directly otherwise or they use one of those business arms to benefit the other to the detriment of another, you are saying they're crooks. I don't buy the second class citizen routine, no one is losing contractual benefits based on resale vs retail. IMO it's appropriate to differentiate resale vs retail and there's really no way to do that other than to remove or restrict non contractual benefits from those who don't buy retail.

 

[disneynutz]

Bill, if you believe they purposefully made any of the points off for sales purposes (THV, Poly), shirk their responsibility to reallocate if the information is clear unless it benefits them directly otherwise or they use one of those business arms to benefit the other to the detriment of another, you are saying they're crooks. I don't buy the second class citizen routine, no one is losing contractual benefits based on resale vs retail. IMO it's appropriate to differentiate resale vs retail and there's really no way to do that other than to remove or restrict non contractual benefits from those who don't buy retail.

We can agree to disagree. My experience with DVD/DVC and business may be different than yours. When a business unit only has so many hours to do their job, they better focus on the elements that make the company the most money. DVC was a "club" with "members", now some of those members do not have the same benefits as others because they didn't buy direct from Disney at a higher price. If DVC was not run by Disney the DVC benefits would be the same for all.

Bill

 

[Dean]

We can agree to disagree. My experience with DVD/DVC and business may be different than yours. When a business unit only has so many hours to do their job, they better focus on the elements that make the company the most money. DVC was a "club" with "members", now some of those members do not have the same benefits as others because they didn't buy direct from Disney at a higher price. If DVC was not run by Disney the DVC benefits would be the same for all.

Bill

That's the thing, it is and always has been a timeshare.

 

[Matty B13]

That's the thing, it is and always has been a timeshare.

But they were selling the "Disney" timeshare which isn't suppose to be just like every other timeshare it was suppose to be better. I just see the restrictions on resale benefits hurting the DVC brand because now everyone who comes on to Disboards now hears don't count on the benefits even if you buy direct because DVC has either taken them away or changed them. I understand wanting to differentiate direct from resale, but if a new buyer can't count on the benefits for the 50 years of the contract why buy direct? Just seams short sighted....... but not crooked.

 

[ScubaCat]

But they were selling the "Disney" timeshare which isn't suppose to be just like every other timeshare it was suppose to be better.

That's just a sales pitch, piggybacking on the Disney brand. The only thing that differentiates the product is the location adjacent to Disney theme parks. The rooms are average as far as timeshares and resorts are concerned, with various problems that could be easily resolved if there were a financial incentive to do so.

The problem is the same as giving a contractor too much money up front. When you buy into DVC, you've given them (DVD) all the profits up front, thereby eliminating any incentive to do more than the bare minimum going forward. The only things they do (basic maintenance and perks a.k.a. "membership extras" ) are to keep up the image to sell newer properties. Do you really think the DVC Safari Spectacular was thrown "to do something extra for our members", or to show off the product as a sales tool to lure new buyers?

 

[Brian Noble]

I just see the restrictions on resale benefits hurting the DVC brand because now everyone who comes on to Disboards now hears don't count on the benefits even if you buy direct because DVC has either taken them away or changed them.

Don't give this a second thought. Timeshare is sold, not bought. Very few people wake up and say to themselves: "Today I'm going to spend (tens of) thousands of dollars to obligate myself to a portion of the operation and maintenance of a vacation condo." Instead, someone on vacation is having the time of their lives, and for some reason takes a DVC tour. They are given the opportunity to bottle that feeling for decades to come "at today's prices." And they do it. Then, having made what for most is an aspirational purchase that they feel great about, they do not go looking for reasons why it wasn't the best decision ever.

Those here on DIS are not at all representative of the typical DVC owner.