Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[T-i-double-g-err]

I don't completely buy this. If DVC really wanted to encourage more weekend stays, those points would have come down more. If folks want to dodge the high weekend points, they still can (and will) do it.

DisFlan

I think for some of the room categories the 20% cap on point change per night would limit the point changes to 1-2 points. On others, my guess is that someone was picking an increase that would be a "step in the right direction" to reduce instances of hitting people with a 4-5 pt/night increase. So, over the next few years, we may see the points differential between week nights and weekend nights erode further. I've speculated elsewhere that this may be part of a multi-year reallocation process with 2010 being the first one towards some goal point charts created based upon prior occupancy/demand usage data.

If that's the case, management's perspective may be that they are phasing the reallocation into the system over time in a way that does not make the whole change they believe is necessary in one big leap. I'm not defending them, and I certainly think that the lack of communication and notification to current and new members was awful. I'm just stating that DVC management may have actually believed that these charts minimized the planning impact on membership rather than going in one jump to where they think the point charts should ultimately reach. If so, going back to communication, I would certainly appreciate knowing what that point is so that I can plan accordingly now, rather than scramble every time an incremental change is made along the path.

 

[Inkmahm]

Unintended I hope, but it just comes across as sounding really condescending.

Because I've been saying the same thing for 60+ pages and some people still choose to not understand and insist Disney is the big bad wolf because Disney followed the contract. The contract that we all signed. Yes, I'm frustrated that there are adults that spent thousands of $ and seem not to have taken the time to read the contract to understand what they were buying. That is not Disney's fault, it is their own fault.

Maybe it's because I work in business and deal with contracts all the time. I would never sign something I didn't understand.

 

[Inkmahm]

Disney may have played by your rules, but they did not play by mine. If you pay attention to the what people are writing you will see a common thread where guides provided a rational explanation to the reallocation clause having to do with where certain holidays fall in the calender year. This is a misrepresentation and is wrong. To simply say they are sales people and you should expect them to lie is overly simplistic. This is the kind of rational that has caused such behavior to become almost acceptable in our society. Obviously quite acceptable to some of the posters here.

I agree Disney acted within the letter of the contract, but allowed their sales practices to be less than above board. It is easy to be smug when you are benefitting from these changes, but it does not change the fact that Disney has fallen way short in the manner in which this reallocation has played out.

I'm going to benefit by 10 to 14 points per year based on our current travel pattern. Not enough to sway my opinion. If the change had hurt me by 10 to 14 points per year I'd be saying the same thing.

 

[DisFlan]

I think for some of the room categories the 20% cap on point change per night would limit the point changes to 1-2 points. On others, my guess is that someone was picking an increase that would be a "step in the right direction" to reduce instances of hitting people with a 4-5 pt/night increase. So, over the next few years, we may see the points differential between week nights and weekend nights erode further. I've speculated elsewhere that this may be part of a multi-year reallocation process with 2010 being the first one towards some goal point charts created based upon prior occupancy/demand usage data.

If that's the case, management's perspective may be that they are phasing the reallocation into the system over time in a way that does not make the whole change they believe is necessary in one big leap. I'm not defending them, and I certainly think that the lack of communication and notification to current and new members was awful. I'm just stating that DVC management may have actually believed that these charts minimized the planning impact on membership rather than going in one jump to where they think the point charts should ultimately reach. If so, going back to communication, I would certainly appreciate knowing what that point is so that I can plan accordingly now, rather than scramble every time an incremental change is made along the path.

You may well be right, but WOW, I hate to think of this "enhancement" becoming a yearly occurrence. If their ultimate goal is actually a "flatter" point system, a little more upfront info would go a long way toward helping with the impact of this plan.

DisFlan

 

[tigger2on]

should allow owners who already have contracts to add a few points now if they don't have enough to do their vacations.... it won't happen I know... 25 pt. min contracts but it would show good faith to investors to have a limited time add-ons....

 

[epcotwanderer]

Inkmahm,
You and I are in the same boat.
I can't believe how many people did not read the contract either.
I know it's Disney but you and I know you still have to read the fine print.

 

[Inkmahm]

Inkmahm,
You and I are in the same boat.
I can't believe how many people did not read the contract either.
I know it's Disney but you and I know you still have to read the fine print.

Exactly.

And on that note, I'm out of here to go enjoy a nice steak dinner with my DH. Maybe you can carry on the battle while I'm gone.

 

[Donald is #1]

Out of curiosity today, I calculated my upcoming December trip with both point charts. The details are: 10 nights, beginning of December, AKV SV 1BR. Well the answer is the same with both point charts. 296 points

 

[epcotwanderer]

Exactly.

And on that note, I'm out of here to go enjoy a nice steak dinner with my DH. Maybe you can carry on the battle while I'm gone.

Enjoy your dinner!

 

[DisDaydreamer]

Out of curiosity today, I calculated my upcoming December trip with both point charts. The details are: 10 nights, beginning of December, AKV SV 1BR. Well the answer is the same with both point charts. 296 points

I think the problem is really experienced by the smaller contract owners. The ones who typically book Su - Th. to maximize their points. Like me

For some it will mean they can afford to book into Friday and/or Saturday, but for most it just means more points needed.

 

[Brian Noble]

The same thing being that is perfectly alright for Disney to mislead people through their sales practices?

Every salesman---every single one---is going to give you reasons why you should buy their product. That's their job. They are not going to go out of their way to explain why you should not buy it. That's not their job. Furthermore, when you ask even a scrupulously honest one a question, you can expect to get the truth, and nothing but the truth, but maybe not the whole truth.

For example: "Will the points I need ever change?" "The points allocated to each Unit can never change." Here's another one: "They've never changed as long as I've been here"

The first one is true, and the second is too for any guide who hired in after the OKW reallocation. And, both answer the question, after a fashion, though not really the question the customer was asking.

I also will bet you that many guides had no idea that reallocation was possible. I teach for a living, and my kids are pretty darn smart. Even so, if I had a dollar for every time one of them asked me a question that was already answered in the assignment handout that they supposedly read, I'd be able to buy a hefty BLT contract right now.

To be sure, I'm not saying "it's alright for them to do this." But, I am saying that if you didn't at least consider the possibility that your Guide might have said something that was misleading, you probably shouldn't have given them tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[DisFlan]

As Rob mentioned in another thread, increasing the allowed yearly transfer to two or three would help ease the impact of this change.

DisFlan

 

[DisDaydreamer]

As Rob mentioned in another thread, increasing the allowed yearly transfer to two or three would help ease the impact of this change.

DisFlan

That is my assertion... If this is truly a means to make things better for the DVC owner then let us transfer points up to three times per year to be able to work this out and minimize the negative results for the members who will be impacted negatively.

Simple solution in my book... If they are really trying to help membership.

 

[Chuck S]

That is my assertion... If this is truly a means to make things better for the DVC owner then let us transfer points up to three times per year to be able to work this out and minimize the negative results for the members who will be impacted negatively.

Simple solution in my book... If they are really trying to help membership.

I would have no objection to amending the one transfer per year rule for 2010, but not permanently. It reopens too many opportunities for the "commercial" renter.

 

[Dean]

Just a random thought here, but does anyone actually know how low the actual weekend usage was/is? Was it really bad enough to warrant all the sturm und drang and bad PR this thing is generating, especially with the current economic conditions and the other recent DVC changes?

If enough members shorten their trips by a day or two, it may make for less generated revenue in the long run. Not to mention the people who won't be buying more points because of the 100 pt. minimum - or don't want to feel pressured into doing add-ons. Or simply can't afford it right now.

The other thing that comes to mind is that DVC sales to both new and current members are likely quite a bit lower than had been projected a year or two ago. I'm not at all certain that re-jiggering points, upping point costs or the required minimum add-on purchase will help sales. And all this is happening in a short span of time - at the wrong time in a bad economy. (If they waited this long to change the point structure, including a couple of economic downturns, why not wait a couple more years? Or when the economy improves a bit?)

We'll have to wait and see if this bid for more revenue works. I want DVC to succeed, but at the moment, I'm a bit grumpy with them.

DisFlan

None of us have spread sheets from Disney with numbers on them. I think 1995 or 1996 was the last year the state of FL required timeshares to publish such data. While I don't have a hard copy or specifics, the one set of published numbers I saw then had quite a spread on them of somewhere around 20% difference weekends to week days for some of the slower times, less for busier times. Actually shortening a trip makes for no loss of income to Disney per se and if the overall occupancy is up, it increases Disney's revenue for a number of reasons. Still, this is DVC which has a requirement to management the resorts for the members benefit. Any time there is a change, some will win and some will lose. If the balance was off they had to do it without regard to the economic impact for either party.

YES THEY DID DURING THE SALES PRESENTATION!!!!!!!! I guess you are just not listening. They represented Disney and everyone planned on how many points to buy using their point charts.

I love Disney too but STOP being such a ! What they did was wrong and affects far to many people in the wrong way! Like the other person said, "Just because it's legal doesn't make it right....!"

Did they say it wouldn't change? can you prove it? Did you not sign that verbal representations not in writing didn't apply? Did you read the paperwork that said otherwise? I think many are still missing the point that this isn't DVC out to get members as some seem to think. It's something they had to do if the usage was skewed and how it affected an individual member should have been at most only a small part of the discussion. It's unfortunate for those that planned tightly and now are short but it's part of the system one signed on to. The truth is that what the salesperson said really has no meaning by itself. With DVC they gave their best honest spiel as a rule, with some timeshares you get frank manipulation and lies.

 

[Dean]

Why wasn't this change brought up at hte member meeting in December? Isn't that what those meetings are for?

No, but they should be IMO.

I think this is a Freudian typo -- many of us are feeling a little fussy lately.

LOL, maybe. I was afraid some were drinking themselves fuzzy today.

Lets clear all the smoke here and # crunching!!! It's simple

If your stay is usually 7 days that includes Fri. and Sat. things bacically stay the same no winner or loser!

If you are a local or even an out of state weekender that stays 3 to 4 nights that include Fri. and Sat. your a BIG winner!!

IF what seems alot of people are here a Sun. through Thurs. vacationer your a BIG LOOSER!!

So who does it effect the most? Families trying to save and spend extra quality time with their kids at disney! THANK DVC

And that's that

I was with you right up until the editorial. We don't really know who it helps or hurts from a family standpoint nor is it relevant to the change IMO. The only question that's important to making the change is whether usage was skewed enough to do so.

 

[Dean]

Could this be - since I don't buy the balancing out occupancy reasoning- increasing the weeknights to make the extremely high points at VGC and probably Hawaii seem more in line with the rest of the system? So there isn't one resort with obvious "point bargains" (like VB beach cottages sadly once were).

The idea that you saw certain options as points bargains would suggest you saw the issue the same was DVC did. Ideally one would look at the points and from a cost standpoint see every day the same value as any other day. I realize that is an impossible goal for a given member but on an aggregate basis that is the goal.

OT, but I'm wondering what the 3 day record (for a DVC board thread) is for posts and views. We're almost at 1000 posts and 33,000 views. That's amazing.

That's almost 14 posts per hour every hour for three days.
AND
That's almost 8 views per MINUTE for three days.

Wasn't the reservation change to 7 days at a time at 100 pages by around 24 hours. And pretty much with the same tone from the same people, myself included.

I agree Disney acted within the letter of the contract, but allowed their sales practices to be less than above board. It is easy to be smug when you are benefitting from these changes, but it does not change the fact that Disney has fallen way short in the manner in which this reallocation has played out.

I don't think that's fair. I think the guides did what most of the rest on this thread have done, make assumptions that ended up being untrue, namely that things wouldn't change or if they did, not to this degree. If a minimum stay were instituted next year will you feel the guides were inappropriate in telling you there was no minimum stay currently. Would you feel they should warn everyone they tour "you know it could change tomorrow". They wouldn't sell very well if they were too honest about the what if's.

 

[Dean]

Thanks, Dean. It would be interesting to see if DVC would ever give up the amount of control necessary to allow the members to decide on the 7 day minimum. It doesn't seem to fit their pattern.

They've never taken anything to a vote. Disney certainly is about control, esp in the current economic times.

Not true

HHI Premier Season 1 week 2009
1 bd room-259
2 bd room-330


HHI Premier Season 1 week 2010
1 bd room- 261
2 bd room- 336

I know the difference is only a few points but some people bought just enough to cover a one weeks stay

I would qualify those as basically the same as Tom did.

I'm going to benefit by 10 to 14 points per year based on our current travel pattern. Not enough to sway my opinion. If the change had hurt me by 10 to 14 points per year I'd be saying the same thing.

It hurt me by a lot more than 10-14 and I am saying the same type of things.

 

[Dean]

Here are two thread's within the last year where I made the recommendation to buy a 10% cushion. In one I cautioned that I'd make it a priority for smaller units and lower seasons.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=28002929




http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1797529

 

[maminnie]

Here are two thread's within the last year where I made the recommendation to buy a 10% cushion. In one I cautioned that I'd make it a priority for smaller units and lower seasons.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=28002929

Dean:

Seems to me your 10% recommendation should have also been part of DVC sales rep's sales presentation over the years too. It certainly was not part of the conversation relative to our two purchases. My husband and I did not take our purchases lightly and spent hours and days sifting through the materials and the contracts. We spent hours determining how many points to buy based on our future travel needs. We asked our sales rep and quality assurance personnel many, many questions even about point reallocation. It was almost rediculous and obsessive how many questions we asked! Reallocation info pertained more to holidays and seasons then week days and weekend days. At no time did anyone recommend a point cushion.

We understand what is in the contract and what it says and Disney certainly exercised their legal right to make changes but I feel disappointed for all of us whose future plans are now effected. As I said in a previous post I feel that we should have been notified in time to make educated decisions regarding our 2009/2010 points. Mine would have been different and my guess so would many other people's.

maminnie