Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[bcrook]

To specifically address your comments, it isn't an across the board 20% increase. Look no further than the BCV and VWL point charts. Through 2009 both resorts were identical. But if you look at the 2010 versions published, they are now different.

I just looked at the charts again for 2010. I see very little difference between BCV and VWL for 2010 except for premier weeks (interesting there, because lots of people talk about VWL being in high demand then but BCV were raised much higher). For the most part, for all resorts each weekday went up about 4 points and weekend went down about 10-14 points for one and two bedrooms. The Grand Villas are almost all opposite - went up on weekends and down during the week. That is very interesting.

If the same increase is found in every resort during the week and reduced the same for every weekday. It would indicate that all the resorts have the same use patterns. I just can't believe that is accurate.

 

[lugnut33]

As WilsonFlyer said, DVC would be in a heap of trouble if they couldn't justify their numbers. I suspect (but don't know) that DVC probably farmed-out the reallocation to an accounting firm or actuary. That's the easiest way to deflect criticism when state regulators come knocking.

To specifically address your comments, it isn't an across the board 20% increase. Look no further than the BCV and VWL point charts. Through 2009 both resorts were identical. But if you look at the 2010 versions published, they are now different.

I bet anything less than a 20% reallocation wouldn't even get a raised eyebrow by the state of Florida.

 

[DVC92]

DVC is a major bureaucracy a the present time and only getting bigger. To pare it down for a smaller group of members around 2042 will be difficult and expensive. DVC needs to cont all resorts for around the same time frame to minimize costs per point. I am sympathetic to the problem they had to accomplish this with OKW but IMO they do not have the legal right to institute a special assessment for this purpose and had I still owned OKW, I would have put that theory to the test.

It was put to the test with the Timeshare Bureau. The state of Florida had already approved the extension and wasn't about to backtrack. A subsidy for non-extenders was achieved, but I'm still waiting for DVC to publicly inform OKW members about it. They really seem to have a problem with communication.

 

[DVC92]

Have they?

No, they haven't publicly addressed it.

 

[tidefan]

Tim said in a post awhile back that the market segment that DVC would be losing out on are the Value seekers. I was thinking about this and it just didn't strike me that Disney would want to lose out on any market segment, then I thought, "You know, when the hotels went through this they turned around and built the All-Star resorts to satisfy budget travelers". That's when the light bulb went off in my head.

You don't think that this may be a preliminary move to establish the oft-discussed value DVC?

It has been documented on various sites that the other half of Pop Century is seeing things stirring finally after being mothballed after 9/11. I think that the re-branding is getting the term "Disney's Animation Inn and Suites" or something like that. I wonder if the "Value DVC" rumors could be true? This re-allocation would certainly create ample opportunity for a lower points resort that Disney could push as the "Value" alternative. Disney certainly didn't want the Value hotel customers off-site, why would they want this segment of the timeshare industry left untapped either. When you think about it, if priced reasonably, they could make a killing...

This is just my thinking, it's not something I have heard or anything, but just putting one and two together.

 

[bcrook]

That would be an example of using reallocation as a marketing strategy (as opposed to a response to usage patterns). Very interesting. There are many ways this reallocation works as a marketing tool. I just can't see evidence that it is based on booking patterns. Not at least in the manner things were reallocated so uniformly.

 

[photobob]

Congratulations! You goes in the "Gets it" column. Seriously.

Unfortunately, and especially among relatively smaller point owners, you appear to be very much in the minority.

It's not that we don't get it, Bob. I understand the what and why, but you can't expect people to be happy whose points don't go as far as they did. As i have stated before I was aware that changes could be made. My guide explained that there could be slight adjustments made, and if an adjustment was made where something went up in points, something else would go down in points.
These are by no means slight adjustments. My 2009 five night stay will be 25 points higher if I take the same in in 2010. I don't consider that a slight adjustment.

Bob

 

[tidefan]

That would be an example of using reallocation as a marketing strategy (as opposed to a response to usage patterns). Very interesting. There are many ways this reallocation works as a marketing tool. I just can't see evidence that it is based on booking patterns. Not at least in the manner things were reallocated so evenly.

Could have been both. Sort of the "intersection of ingenuity and opportunity". I have no doubt that the charts were out of whack somewhat. All one had to do is read the Reservation thread about how many people purchased specifically for Christmas/New Years at BWV to at least suspect that it was a game of musical chairs at best and someone gets left out...

I also am pretty sure that Sun-Thurs was out of whack, but I blame DVC for that one by letting it continue for so long on low points that they drove the usage to these patterns and now they are reaping what they have sown...

 

[MELSMICE]

I think this is definitely a huge part of the issue. Reallocation was inevitable (and necessary IMHO). The people it hurts the most are those with small contracts. I don't think the minimum should have been reduced, and I think they should have worked harder to make sure New owners (even those buying via resale) owned at least the minimum required points.

We have 360 points & while I don't know if it will "hurt" us, it will definitely make a difference in the way we utilize/maximze our points. 360 is not a huge # of points, but is obviously more than double the minimum.

Our stay this coming April is 223 points, I believe. Our remaining points we usually use for an October visit. If there is anything at all remaining after that, we will then use it for a February visit.

If we are going to need more points for each visit, then obviously either one visit has to go or I have to spend cash for a room. I'm not opposed to a cash visit at a resort - we do it quite often because we like to experience different resorts - it's just frustrating.

My point is, even those of us with larger than minimum contracts are still affected by the change(s).

 

[bcrook]

Could have been both. Sort of the "intersection of ingenuity and opportunity". I have no doubt that the charts were out of whack somewhat. All one had to do is read the Reservation thread about how many people purchased specifically for Christmas/New Years at BWV to at least suspect that it was a game of musical chairs at best and someone gets left out...

I can see that there would be lots of seasonal variation (like Christmas at BWV) or new perks (like MK view at BLT or Savannah View at AKV) but that doesn't justify widespread change for every single unit in every single time period at every single resort all at one time.

Plus the argument this isn't based on usage patterns is the fact that there are no usage patterns yet at BLT or AKV Kidani. But that is an entirely different hot spot that needs to be worked out still, and is the most unfair part of this whole reallocation.

 

[tjkraz]

You say that like you know people were overbooking on weekdays in every category, but we don't actually know that for a fact. We are assuming, but I doubt every resort and every type of room had that happening.

Not sure what you mean by overbookings but higher weekday occupancy under the current charts is a pretty well known phenomenon. And as long as things were out of balance, and adjustment was warranted.

You don't need to demonstrate consistent 100% weekday occupancy in order for the adjustments to be valid. As long as the weekdays were materially different than weekends, rebalancing is appropriate.

I just looked at the charts again for 2010. I see very little difference between BCV and VWL for 2010 except for premier weeks

Adventuer Season 1B weekday: 25pts BCV, 26 pts VWL
Choice Season 1b weekday: 27pts BCV, 28 pts VWL
Dream Season Studio weekday: 15 pts BCV, 14 pts VWL
Premier Season 2B weekday: 60 pts BCV, 57 pts VWL

There are other differences as well.

Additionally, BWV Preferred used to also match BCV and VWL, but is now also displaying variances.

Without having access to any hard data, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not the adjustments are appropriate. But given the points are now different where they were previously identical suggests that each resort was evaluated on its own. The rest we are forced to take at face value.

 

[Chuck S]

Just want to clarify and respond to a poster a few pages back that said these boards are "against small point owners"...I am not against "small point owners" as such. My complaint is that DVC itself should never have lowered the minimum points to such a low level. It is not the fault of any individual DVC member. The system can simply not absorb a large influx of small contracts, it wasn't designed to do so.

For instance, if a resort has 100 rooms and 10,000 300 point members, and 50% want to book Sun to Friday for Christmas week, that meant that 5,000 people will be trying for 100 rooms. 2% will be successful, 98% or 4,900 will be disappointed. Or 49% of total membership.

If that same 100 room resort has instead 30,000 100 point members, and 50% all tried for the same 100 rooms, sun to friday Christmas week the success rate is now 0.66%. And 14,900 will be disappointed. It just throws demand out of whack. It is the cumulative effect of the higher total number of individual owners, not the individual owners themselves. Or 49.66% of total membership.

It is a simple numbers game, more owners means more demand, and if those owners buy just enough points for weekdays every year, it creates a weekday/weekend imbalance.

 

[lugnut33]

What if they make a 150 point minimum reservation requirement?

 

[BroganMc]

What if they make a 150 point minimum reservation requirement?

Then you throw all the studio reservations out of balance. Studios only go for over 150 per week in Premier season.

Perhaps the biggest trouble DVC got themselves into was assigning point values for the weeks in various seasons on those charts. I'm betting a lot of folks bought into the system figuring on those weekly values as their benchmarks.

Changes to weekdays and weekends, I doubt, is nearly as painful to most owners as changes to the weekly totals.

Just looking at the SSR point charts for next year (comparing 2009 vs 2010 point requirements), I find the winners are those with larger units with those opting for smaller units the biggest losers.

If you opted to stay only in studios and had enough points for the year, under the revised schedules you'd need 77 more points.
Same scenario with 1bedrooms cost 86 more points.
Two bedroom & Treehouse Villa renters need 9 points less.
Grand Villas cost 214 points less.

I'm still unclear how DVC calculated their point reallocation. I either come up with thousands more points or thousands less points, depending how I configure the equation. I've yet to reach that magic number zero.

Just a note: there are exactly the same number of weekdays and weekends in each season next year (for SSR) as this year.

EDITED TO ADD: Another thing I'm finding on the new schedules. There's absolutely no incentive for picking an SSR studio over other resorts in October now. It costs 13 points for SSR, VWL and BWV. (Used to be a point difference between SSR and VWL & BWV). AKV has priced itself out of the market at 14 points that month. Only BLT is more expensive at 15 points.

 

[MiaSRN62]

Melsmice : If we are going to need more points for each visit, then obviously either one visit has to go or I have to spend cash for a room. I'm not opposed to a cash visit at a resort - we do it quite often because we like to experience different resorts - it's just frustrating.

My point is, even those of us with larger than minimum contracts are still affected by the change(s).

See, this is how I see it too ? All the talk about small contracts ? I initially bought in with 150 (guess that's small ??) but have since added another 100. But even a person who has 500 points and purchased that amount with the intention of utilizing every last one of thos points every year, could still be coming up short and having to drop days....downsize unit size....etc. I mean, one could have 500 points and still vacation using only weekdays several times a year ? We're just assuming those with larger points stay over weekends consistantly if at all ?

So how is this different ? This is what I'm not getting ?

Maria

 

[Chuck S]

See, this is how I see it too ? All the talk about small contracts ? I initially bought in with 150 (guess that's small ??) but have since added another 100. But even a person who has 500 points and purchased that amount with the intention of utilizing every last one of thos points every year, could still be coming up short and having to drop days....downsize unit size....etc. I mean, one could have 500 points and still vacation using only weekdays several times a year ? We're just assuming those with larger points stay over weekends consistantly if at all ?

So how is this different ? This is what I'm not getting ?

Maria

Because it is, again, the sheer number of owners trying for the same time frame. If everyone of the owners at a resort had 500 points, there would be fewer owners overall at the resort, and fewer people vying for the same reservation. Going back to the 100 room resort in the illustration above...

If that same 100 room resort had only owners with 500 points, there would now be 6,000 owners at the resort. If 50% of them wanted one of those 100 rooms for a Sunday to Friday reservation at Christmas, that would mean 3000 are trying for the reservation. And again 100 or 3.33% would succeed. 2,900 would fail, meaning 96.66% of those trying. That would be 48.33% of total resort membership.

Now the difference in our examples between 49.66%, 49% and 48.33% of membership may seem insignificant. But when applied to hundreds of thousands of members, the differences are great.

People are complaining because their individual vacation habits are no longer viable under the 2010 charts, but even in the examples, you are disappointing either 2,900, 4,900 or 14,900 individuals, just with the differences between 500, 300 and 100 point minimum ownerships. The greater the number of total owners, the greater the number of individuals unable to book their desired vacations.

It is all a numbers game. Someone much earlier in the thread compared the charts to a Sudoku puzze, and really it is a pretty accurate description. Try to design the charts within the confines of the resort point limit so that the highest number of members can use their points, ideally using most or all of their annual points every year. If that means some individuals lose a night while other gain a night, unfortunately, that is they way the puzzle fits together.

 

[T-i-double-g-err]

I have read this over and over again. Nobody seems to base their ideas of the point spread on anything concrete. So it is possible that this is not based on use pattern but a different marketing plan. If it is a different marketing plan that is something to howl about.

And do you think that ALL resorts show the same use pattern? Isn't it possible that OKW has a higher weekend reserve rate than AKV? Then should OKW weekends be reduced the same amount? The across the board 20% changes doesn't really look like it based on usage patterns.

I don't see maximum adjustments as evidence that changes were not made based upon demand patterns. If demand was truly out of whack, DVC will have projected what kind of reallocation would rebalance demand. If the projection required more than the 20% change, it could only implement a first step in one year by doing a maximum 20% reallocation. Wherever we saw a 20% change in a 2010 chart entry, I would see a higher probability of seeing further changes in the 2011 charts, unless demand data between now and 2011 chart publication demonstrate the desired shift in demand with only the 2010 reallocation.

 

[MiaSRN62]

Because it is, again, the sheer number of owners trying for the same time frame. If everyone of the owner at a resort had 500 points, there would be fewer owners overall at the resort, and fewer people vying for the same reservation. Going back to the 100 room resort in the illustration above.

I see what you're saying Chuck....but couldn't an owner of 500 points, break up their points into enough visits during the year (say 20 if they wanted) and they would still be "acting" as an owner of a small point contract if they chose to vacation for shorter periods during the week spaced out throughout the year. I don't know...maybe I'm just missing something. But I do get what you said in the above quote.

 

[Starr W.]

I see what you're saying Chuck....but couldn't an owner of 500 points, break up their points into enough visits during the year (say 20 if they wanted) and they would still be "acting" as an owner of a small point contract if they chose to vacation for shorter periods during the week spaced out throughout the year. I don't know...maybe I'm just missing something. But I do get what you said in the above quote.

I think the problem is there are some bottlenecks of demand at DVC as a whole and certain resorts. For example VWL for Xmas decorations, how many owners try to book rooms Thanksgiving to Xmas?

When I've called at 7 months for Jan or May trips, I can always get a 2br at VWL. I stayed there in May once and if it was booked to 50% capacity I'll buy you one of those pricey pool drinks at VB.

 

[Chuck S]

I see what you're saying Chuck....but couldn't an owner of 500 points, break up their points into enough visits during the year (say 20 if they wanted) and they would still be "acting" as an owner of a small point contract if they chose to vacation for shorter periods during the week spaced out throughout the year. I don't know...maybe I'm just missing something. But I do get what you said in the above quote.

Sure, but it depends upon the percentage of those 500 point owners that would break them into several visits. In theory, a large percentage would also use them in a single reservation.

Disney gambled that small 150 initial contract owners would do add-ons, preferably at their home resort, to increase their membership, keeping the demand in balance. A large percentage apparently did not add-on. Disney lost that gamble.