Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[TSMIII]

I think that's the fear some posters have mentioned--that this isn't the end of the changes (just the changes that could be made for THIS year). At some point it will affect the booking patterns. We just don't know what that point is.

I think this is one point that's been somewhat overlooked in this discussion and I give credit to those posters who have raised it.

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing if they are done with the adjustments in the immediate future. My guess is that further adjustments are coming but without seeing the data no one can say for sure.

When I look at the new charts I'm struck by the fact that studios in Adventure and Choice seasons for the following resorts are exactly the same:
AKV - Value; BLT - LV; BCV; BWV - BW/PREF View; VWL

Now, are these changes actually designed to have demand equal in these room categories across two seasons at the same resort and roughly 5 months of the year or did DVC not get the adjustment that was needed due to the 20% reallocation wall and further adjustments are coming? I guess that's the $64K question.

DVC should have a good idea of where they're at and where they need to be to balance demand. Things could have gone a few ways with regard to demand data.
1. Demand could have remained reasonably stable, in which case we would have never seen a change as their current model (or recipe if you like, i.e the point charts) would have worked.
2. Demand could have been out of control and all over the place with no consistent trend(s) which would have meant the point charts were completely ineffective. If this were the case, you'd essentially want to zero everything out and start from some baseline in an effort to get some consistent results to base further adjustments on - were this our situation I'd expect to see the maximum reallocation chart implemented where every night in every season was the same number of points.
3. Demand could have exhibited a trend outside the desired range, either continuing to get further away from it or having plateaued. In this case, which has to be where we currently are, DVC has sought to bring demand back into control by adjusting the point charts. We'll likely never know whether the skew in demand had pateaued or was continuing to get worse.

Having done process control for a number of years using trend analysis and modeling, I'm thinking DVC probably has more than enough data with which to base their moves. What I've picked up on in this discussion from some of the long time members is that DVC has probably gone longer than expected in doing another reallocation.

Usually, if we were dealing with the characteristics of example #3, we would do a small, conservative move based off an algorithm (or model) for that particular parameter which was out of control and then watch the results to see if the adjustment worked or not.

If the results showed absolutely no improvement, or even worse performance, we'd revert back to the previous "recipe" while we analyzed it some more and tried a different model to correct it. Let's hope this is NOT the result of the new reallocation because it would mean DVC got it totally wrong.

If the results showed everything back in control, problem solved and we'd continue to monitor it. Let's hope this IS the result and they don't have to go any further anytime soon.

If the results showed some improvement, but not enough to get back into the desired range then another adjustment would have to be made to get it back into control. If this is the result then DVC will have to reallocate again after they've compiled enough data to do the analysis. Your guess how long that takes - I'd think at a bare minimum 2 years, maybe more if the economy causes this year to be an outlier.

Without the data this is total speculation on my part, but seeing those rooms exactly the same in two seasons has me fearful that DVC is not finished with their first move on the data. That they either hit the 20% wall, or didn't want to go too drastic in the first pass and that next year we may see another adjustment. I sincerely hope I'm wrong!

 

[White_Sox_Fan]

I agree with you, but I have also heard on these boards that DVC/Disney doesn't care if we take fewer trips or fail to use our points because they already have our money. That is, they don't need to provide additional perks and promotions to DVC people because we have already paid for our trip.

It is somewhat cynical to believe that Disney doesn't care if we get to use all our points. It is in the best interest of everyone, Disney included, to have the system work the way it was intended. We can't spend money there if were sitting at home.

 

[dis-happy]

If they maintain close to 100% occupancy that means all the members are getting the opportunity to use all their points. Since they sell up to 98% of the points anything that averages less than 98% means that there are members whose points are not being used. It is best for the members if DVC can maintain as close to full occupancy as possible since that means everyone is getting the full benefit of their purchase.

Another way of looking at it: all points in any given year are a liability to DVC until they are either used for a reservation or expire. They give the holder a "right" to a room and if DVC can't deliver that room they have a problem. They need to use the economic motivators they have at hand to keep things in check; in this case changing the points spread.

The thread a couple of years ago about what might happen in 2042 was a lively and interesting discussion of this problem.

 

[BroganMc]

Without the data this is total speculation on my part, but seeing those rooms exactly the same in two seasons has me fearful that DVC is not finished with their first move on the data. That they either hit the 20% wall, or didn't want to go too drastic in the first pass and that next year we may see another adjustment. I sincerely hope I'm wrong!

Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.

Guide: "Mr & Mrs X now you just need to decide how many points you want. Here are the charts for your resort... oops here's this year's and here it is next year."

Mr X: "Why does it cost more to stay a week next year than this year?"

Guide: "Oh, that's just the recent point reallocation. They do that to balance expected demand."

Mr X: "So how many points will we need for the year after?"

Guide: "They can only increase by 20% every year, but there will never be more points than the resort has in total. Something else goes down. So take that number and add 20% as a buffer."

Mrs X: "They can increase every year?"

Guide: "As long as points decrease at other times of the year or for other units. A 20% buffer should cover it all."

Mr X: "But they can do that every year, you said. So what if they decide to increase the weekly points by another 20% next year. Should we buy 40% more?"

Mrs X: "I thought this idea of this progam was to lock in our vacation dollars at today's prices. It doesn't seem like we're locking anything in with a 20% point increase every year."

Guide: "No you misunderstand, it's a point reallocation. The points for your week may go up 20% maximum but they'll go down for another room type or season by that amount."

Mrs X: "But we only want to take trips during those weeks and we'd need twice as many points for a bigger room."

Mr X: "What's the most that week would cost us with all these point allocations? Who decides to make these changes? Do they consult members first?"

Guide: "Um, uh, we care about our members. We're part of a family."

 

[pakhowe]

Yes. I do believe full disclosure happens on every transaction. The disclosure is in the contract we all signed. It is not hidden.

As I stated before, I read the contract. I was told that the re-allocation clause was for the purpose of adjusting for when certain holidays (such as Easter and Thanksgiving) fell in relation to the calender year. This is a very reasonable explanation and I fail to see why I would not believe it.

Speak to any lawyer and they will tell you fully read any document you sign. If people didn't read the documents they signed then the surprise they feel fault NOT DISNEY'S.

Again I read the contract.

It's time we stop blaming others for our own ignorance. We want others to take the blame for following the rules we agreed to. This is exactly the type of behavior we say we are teaching our children to avoid. Only when we are the ones who shoul dtake responsibility we do not.

It is true, I try to teach my children personal responsibility. I also try to teach them honesty, compassion and understanding.

I'm sure it is easy to sit behind a computer and call people you will never see ignorant, but perhaps you shouldn't assume you know the facts of everyone's individual transaction.

If we didn't read the documents and agreed to something without a complete understanding of the terms and conditions then SHAME ON US. We are the ones who made a mistake. We need to take responsibility for our actions (or inaction) and deal with it.

Bold print above added by me.

I purchased points at AKV a few months ago. I asked about the re-allocation of points and was given a perfectly viable explanation for the clause, which does not in any way resemble the way the clause was exercised. There is no way DVC wasn't aware that this change was in the works when I made my purchase. I absolutely feel that there was, at the very least, a lack of full disclosure.

We planned our first trip home to be a large trip in 2010 with extended family (by banking and borrowing). This first trip was planned and calculated before we signed the paperwork buying into DVC. These changes have increased the point requirements for this trip by 50 points. Yes I am angry. Yes I feel mislead. Yes I probably would have made the purchase had I known about the point re-allocation and I would be alot happier about it now.

On the bright side, The annual trip we are likely to take after this initial one decreased by one point (subject to additional reallocations of course). It will only take us 50 years to recoup the initial loss.

 

[pakhowe]

Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.

Guide: "Mr & Mrs X now you just need to decide how many points you want. Here are the charts for your resort... oops here's this year's and here it is next year."

Mr X: "Why does it cost more to stay a week next year than this year?"

Guide: "Oh, that's just the recent point reallocation. They do that to balance expected demand."

Mr X: "So how many points will we need for the year after?"

Guide: "They can only increase by 20% every year, but there will never be more points than the resort has in total. Something else goes down. So take that number and add 20% as a buffer."

Mrs X: "They can increase every year?"

Guide: "As long as points decrease at other times of the year or for other units. A 20% buffer should cover it all."

Mr X: "But they can do that every year, you said. So what if they decide to increase the weekly points by another 20% next year. Should we buy 40% more?"

Mrs X: "I thought this idea of this progam was to lock in our vacation dollars at today's prices. It doesn't seem like we're locking anything in with a 20% point increase every year."

Guide: "No you misunderstand, it's a point reallocation. The points for your week may go up 20% maximum but they'll go down for another room type or season by that amount."

Mrs X: "But we only want to take trips during those weeks and we'd need twice as many points for a bigger room."

Mr X: "What's the most that week would cost us with all these point allocations? Who decides to make these changes? Do they consult members first?"

Guide: "Um, uh, we care about our members. We're part of a family."

Now that is kinda funny. Thank you, I needed that.

 

[bevis]

Wow! Haven't checked in for a few days so i'm a little behind here but as i've browsed through something caught my eye. I'm not sure that this hasn't been raised already amongst the 100+ pages.

In Post #1233, BroganMC quoted something from his BLT contract. Now i'm no attorney but I know that the interpretation of the wording in a contract means everything.

"- The total number of Vacation points required to use all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2060 can never increase."

There are discussions about the total # of points needing to remain the same for the year. It looks to me that they aren't just talking about adjusting point increases with decreases within a season or year, but over the life of the contract. AM I NUTS?? Or am I interpreting this wrong.

For example: 15,000,000 points per year X 50 years (2010-2060) = ?
The total points for the year could go up 100,000 one year then
down 100,000 the next as long as the total of
15,000,000 x 60 = ? is not exceeded.
Does this make sense? For some reason that's how it reads to me.

 

[bevis]

Sorry! need to fix a typo.
That last "calculation" should be 15,000,000 x 50, not 60.
The # is so big, though does it really matter?

 

[tedhowe]

"- The total number of Vacation points required to use all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2060 can never increase."

No, the amount of total points each year must remain fixed. The bold point above specifies that.

 

[kimberh]

Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.

Guide: "Mr & Mrs X now you just need to decide how many points you want. Here are the charts for your resort... oops here's this year's and here it is next year."

Mr X: "Why does it cost more to stay a week next year than this year?"

Guide: "Oh, that's just the recent point reallocation. They do that to balance expected demand."

Mr X: "So how many points will we need for the year after?"

Guide: "They can only increase by 20% every year, but there will never be more points than the resort has in total. Something else goes down. So take that number and add 20% as a buffer."

Mrs X: "They can increase every year?"

Guide: "As long as points decrease at other times of the year or for other units. A 20% buffer should cover it all."

Mr X: "But they can do that every year, you said. So what if they decide to increase the weekly points by another 20% next year. Should we buy 40% more?"

Mrs X: "I thought this idea of this progam was to lock in our vacation dollars at today's prices. It doesn't seem like we're locking anything in with a 20% point increase every year."

Guide: "No you misunderstand, it's a point reallocation. The points for your week may go up 20% maximum but they'll go down for another room type or season by that amount."

Mrs X: "But we only want to take trips during those weeks and we'd need twice as many points for a bigger room."

Mr X: "What's the most that week would cost us with all these point allocations? Who decides to make these changes? Do they consult members first?"

Guide: "Um, uh, we care about our members. We're part of a family."

So would you buy if this coversation took place? I would not. It would scare me away. I own two non Disney timeshares, I am not a trusting person. I did trust Disney, It is where I felt the Magic for Pete's sake!

We were on a cruise 8 or so years ago. We sat at a Table with a Orlando Lawyer with two girls. The conversation went something like this... I said, " so, how often do you go to Disneyworld?" she replied," Never!" "I would never take my children to Disney!" " I represent Clients daily that are run over by Disney on a Daily basis." " There is Corporate Disney that the World doesn't know about, believe you me, when you deal with them, you sure don't want to spend any money at the parks!" I was just shocked! I couldn't hardly believe what she was saying. I do think I believe her now. At this time we were not DVC owners, we just vacationed there every two years.

 

[MiaSRN62]

gonzalj1 : verbal communications are irrelevant. Only what is in writing matters.


Again, verbal communications, to which you seem to be refferring, are irrelevant. Since the contract, to my knowledge, places no limit on the potential reallocations one can not assume what they may consist of.

PLEASE tell me something myself and others don't already know gonzalj1 ? We know the only binding information is in writing.....we were discussing the verbal communication and the "sales presentation" to the potential customer, as you will have it. It was just a comment on how the sales people handle the presenting of the full facts to customers. That was it. End of story.

And you can disagree all you like....I don't mind that. It's when you start throwing around words like "ignorance" where I'll come back here. And that's what got me. I never said I wasn't aware of allocation in the tiny print of the paperwork. I was simply discussing the verbal sales presentation. If disney continues as they have with some (not providing full disclosure verbally---because we asked about the allocation before signing and I keep repeating this), then they become no different than those hardsell, underhanded timeshare sales people you can find on every corner in Orlando who performed a legal/binding transaction, but in a slimy way.

I purchased points at AKV a few months ago. I asked about the re-allocation of points and was given a perfectly viable explanation for the clause, which does not in any way resemble the way the clause was exercised. There is no way DVC wasn't aware that this change was in the works when I made my purchase. I absolutely feel that there was, at the very least, a lack of full disclosure.

Agreed pakhowe (and I also purchased AKV 90+ days ago).....there is no way when DVC was throwing that Jan 15 deadline at us that they didn't know what they were planning to do. (gosh....I must have gotten 3-4 emails in addition to 3-4 mailings about the Jan 15 cut off.....). Why couldn't they have been giving us the head's up on this drastic allocation at the same time ???

 

[drusba]

Yes. I do believe full disclosure happens on every transaction. The disclosure is in the contract we all signed. It is not hidden.

Speak to any lawyer and they will tell you fully read any document you sign. If people didn't read the documents they signed then the surprise they feel fault NOT DISNEY'S.

It's time we stop blaming others for our own ignorance. We want others to take the blame for following the rules we agreed to. This is exactly the type of behavior we say we are teaching our children to avoid. Only when we are the ones who shoul dtake responsibility we do not.

If we didn't read the documents and agreed to something without a complete understanding of the terms and conditions then SHAME ON US. We are the ones who made a mistake. We need to take responsibility for our actions (or inaction) and deal with it.

Full disclosure in the documents is not as absolute as you present. The documents members actually sign when they purchase state only that Disney reserves the right to adjust points based on changes in "seasonal" demand. What has been done is not an adjustment based on a change in "seasonal" demand but on alleged changes in the daily demand for a week.

A section of the public offering statement (POS), which no one signs -- and under legal principles I am aware of must give way to the actual contract documents signed, i.e., the signed documents, if different from the POS, generally control over the POS -- does appear to give Disney the ability to make adjustments to days of the week based on changes in demand during the week although that is not clearly stated. However, what it does clearly say is that for a member's home resort Disney will make a change only if it is based upon actual experience with demand at the resort over a period a calendar year (or more). Now, even if a BLT buyer read and understood each and every word of the POS and was himself a lawyer who specialized in timeshare documents, he could never conclude that Disney retained the right to make a point adjustment at a resort like BLT before there had ever been a reservation of a room.

Also, full disclosure has another element. What Disney is required to disclose to purchasers is information that is material to the decision to buy. This decision to make a point adjustment most likely was being considered and decided months ago. Puchasers in the last few months at AKV and BLT were not informed of Disney's plan to change the point charts before they would even get to use their points and instead bought relying on the point charts that existed. Arguably, Disney revealed in the documents that it reserved a right to make a change, but that does not equal full disclosure to those recent purchasers for the purpose of the timeshare sale. Nothing in the documents said Disney intended to make the change it did make and that is material information those recent buyers were entitled to have before deciding to purchase.

 

[T-i-double-g-err]

Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.

Actually, my thinking is that they would still represent that the points for any given week does not change radically, except in a few infrequent instances. The key word being "week". Looking at the weekly totals it appears that most weekly amounts only changed by under 4 or so points either up or down. A few had more, but overall the weekly totals remained pretty close. The truly radical differences seem to be for a five night stays ranging from Sun. - Thurs., or worse a Sun. - Thurs., followed by an off-property or cash Fri-Sat, followed by another Sun-Thurs.

Agreed pakhowe (and I also purchased AKV 90+ days ago).....there is no way when DVC was throwing that Jan 15 deadline at us that they didn't know what they were planning to do. (gosh....I must have gotten 3-4 emails in addition to 3-4 mailings about the Jan 15 cut off.....). Why couldn't they have been giving us the head's up on this drastic allocation at the same time ???

I'm a new purchaser, so I'm not sure I have everything straight just yet. Actually, I'm still in my 10-day cancellation window, so I'm a definite newbie. Is it possible that a left-hand/right-hand miscommunication occurred? Is there a separate Disney company responsible for development and sales who controls pricing, minimum purchases, etc. from the Disney company responsible for managing the club, who looks at demand/usage/occupancy and controls the reallocation of the point charts. I'm not saying that this happened. And, I think sister companies responsible for a common asset should communicate better. However, if my speculation is correct, you have two different entities involved that have different goals and mandates.

 

[tjkraz]

Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.

No, I can't imagine that scenario playing-out.

It may prompt some additional discussions which highlight the program as a timeshare moreso than in the past. But I doubt most potential customers will take personal offense to the reallocation as seems to be the case with many here.

The salesperson could even draw parallels to Disney's cash rates. If over time demand begins to spike for a particular event or season, Disney will respond by raising its room rates for that period. They have already implemented higher weekend pricing like most hotel operators.

As for whether members are consulted on a reallocation, obviously the answer is no. It isn't a popularity contest. The points are reallocated in response to member demand patterns.

 

[drusba]

I'm a new purchaser, so I'm not sure I have everything straight just yet. Actually, I'm still in my 10-day cancellation window, so I'm a definite newbie. Is it possible that a left-hand/right-hand miscommunication occurred? Is there a separate Disney company responsible for development and sales who controls pricing, minimum purchases, etc. from the Disney company responsible for managing the club, who looks at demand/usage/occupancy and controls the reallocation of the point charts. I'm not saying that this happened. And, I think sister companies responsible for a common asset should communicate better. However, if my speculation is correct, you have two different entities involved that have different goals and mandates.

There are different entities but not necessarily different personnel. Disney Vacation Development Co (DVD) is the lead entity that develops the resorts, and ultimately has control over all DVC. Two other compaines, Disney Vacation Club Management Co (DVCMC), and Buena Vista Trading Co. (BVTC) are designated managers of the resorts and the reservation system. Officially DVD would be the entity to raise prices and minimal sale points and DVCMC (and possibly BVTC at some resorts) would be the entity to change the point charts. However, finding a practical rather than a legal distinction among the companies would be difficult because they all operate out of the same address and share personnel.

 

[dzorn]

Points have not, and never will, go up. Points have been, and probably will be again, reallocated. The entire number of points to stay in the same room at the resort for the year has not changed. Nor will it. Period. End of Story.

I understand people are upset that they're preferred vacatin times may have gone up. I get it. However, please do not spread misinformation. For every increase there was a corresponding decrease. Guaranteed.

My planned 2010 and 2011 vacations just got less expensive and I can now book another night with my exisiting points. How could I do that if points went up?

Disney was well within their rights to make this change. They gave us ample notice (a year). I agree there could have been a little more communication around it. But all in all they did what they could legally. They never broke of even bent the contract we signed.

Please note these two statements do not match. Disney did not give adequate notice. They gave 2 days. I personally understand that they changes may be necessary but people would may changed their 2009 plans (by borrowing from 2010 or banking 2009) differently if they we actually given adequate notice. AKA when 2010 points were first available for use.

I can only hope that DVC will give adequate notice in the future if and when further re-allocation is needed.

Denise in MI

 

[spiceycat]

probably wrong place - but anyway

because of the BLT - 100 point thing

does anyone else feel that the management at DVC is not as honest as one would hope?

disney has always been honest. this is so under handed that is hardily feels like the company that I love.

so the new disney will be dishonest with its DVC members so what is it doing to the general public?

 

[ckg]

Not having read this huge thread but understanding the change, I kind of like it for our needs as we are locals and now this should take the sting out of weekends a bit.

With that said I completely can see how this can cause hardship for some folks as the planned week point cost can be off by a couple of points for what people have budgeted. I think that sucks for those owners as who is really going to want to do a tiny transfer (to fill in the point gap) for those people so they can get their week stay they have been getting every year. I would suspect that would prove at least somewhat of a hassle at best.

If DVC is going to do this especially for recent Disney bought contracts or Disney bought add ons, they should allow those owners to buy a small odd sized contract to make up for the shortfall. That would be the minimum decent thing to do IMO.

 

[puntagordabob]

Well as a recent BLT purchaser...I am sort of too new to really jump into the they did something good/bad here....

One thing I wish they would do is to allow those of us who bought BLT as 160 or more point purchasers (or even 100 point purchase add-ons too I suppose) to add on 25 point increments if we wish over and above what we have now... doesnt make sense to force people to buy 100 points when they need 10 or so... IMHO for people already onwers at BLT of 160 (or maybe 100) points the 25 point increment seems a fair compromise.

 

[spiceycat]

Well as a recent BLT purchaser...I am sort of too new to really jump into the they did something good/bad here....

One thing I wish they would do is to allow those of us who bought BLT as 160 or more point purchasers (or even 100 point purchase add-ons too I suppose) to add on 25 point increments if we wish over and above what we have now... doesnt make sense to force people to buy 100 points when they need 10 or so... IMHO for people already onwers at BLT of 160 (or maybe 100) points the 25 point increment seems a fair compromise.

my guide asked for this - and was told "NO"

she is a owner at BLT too.

so believe me the guides are just as upset as other members are.