Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[bobbiwoz]

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.

Well, 20 visits would only be 25 points per visit, don't think that actually happens.

However, one owner's points will not be competing against each other for a particular time period, unless the owner is booking more than one room at that time.

Bobbi

 

[Tiger926]

Thanks to those of you who answered my math question a few pages back regarding who is being hardest hit with the new changes. Much appreciated!

We usually go between 10-12 nights at one time, depending upon whether we have banked points or not (we had extra developer's points last year), so we actually would be going 10 nights next year, and 11 this year. Anyway, DH and I did a 2009 vs 2010 vacation @ 11 nights for a direct comparison, and for the exact same vacation in 2010 we are 15 points more. Doesn't seem like a big deal, but it puts us into borrowing 60 points, something we don't want to do. We then said we'd go to Sea World for 2 weekend days, but once we added up cost of tix and hotel room, it's too expensive, considering we already buy APs each year.

So, we are going to knock 1 night off of our usual stay for 10 nights. I will do the exact 2009 vs. 2010 comparison today, but I am assuing it will still be about 15 points? This means 1 less day of spending money in Disney, but that is what the new point allocation means for us as we are not adding-on to accommodate the changes. Not happy about it, but DVC does have the right to do this - although our Guide said it would be 1 point here or there, and hardly ever happens, so when our weekday nights are 4 points more each night, this is a lot. Sure, the weekend totals are down by 8-10 points, but this means that the people on the front end are getting hit the most to make up for the lowering of weekends. We have always done at least 10 nights, so we always have weekdays and weekends anyway.

This is a very interesting thread - we've learned lots! Thanks, Tiger

 

[Inkmahm]

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.

Interesting idea.

Is there a "value" time share industry? Seems to me that people who stay in value hotels may not have the $ (in general) for the initial purchase of points? That may be a bad assumption on my part though.

 

[MiaSRN62]

Bobbiwoz: Well, 20 visits would only be 25 points per visit, don't think that actually happens.

I could see it....people who travel on business trips frequently to Orlando (as an example), and stays only a couple nights stretched out over the year. I doubt it happens often---but it's possible.
Even if it's half the amount I suggested----10 visits/year. I was just picking a number out of a hat really. Just showing how a large point owner could act like a small point owner and book smaller weekday trips throughout the year.

True, the owner is not competing against themselves, but I didn't think that was the point ? Boy this makes my head spin

 

[MiaSRN62]

Is there a "value" time share industry? Seems to me that people who stay in value hotels may not have the $ (in general) for the initial purchase of points? That may be a bad assumption on my part though.

We stay at POP quite often (will be there next Friday for 5 nights) when we're out of points---or to supplement our DVC stays on the weekends. And we own an offsite timeshare, as well as 250 DVC points. So it could happen. But I was wondering if the other half of POP was going to be more like an all-suite resort (like the Family Suites at AS Music) ?

 

[Chuck S]

There are several factors contributing, though. The sheer number of small contracts, savvy renters wanting to rent only Sun to Friday with larger point owners willing to accommodate them, more local owners reaching retirement age and staying weekdays instead of weekends, etc. The system could likely have absorbed one or two of these factors. It is the cumulative effect of them all that threw the room demand out of whack. remember the system was also designed with the idea that a certain percentage of owners would trade to other non-DVC locations. 150 points really doesn't allow for much of that, either.

 

[MiaSRN62]

Thanks Chuck....I get it.....

Maria

 

[Diznee4me]

If this truly is the reason, you basically have a major change to point usage due to the complaints of those wanting weekends and some wanting 9 nights out of 365 for MVMCP and ESPN,

So what happens when those affected by the change complain now. When does it end. Which squeaky wheel is making the most noise and getting its way.

My reaction to this reasoning DVC gave to reallocate I think is lame to say the least. I do not know about you but during the seasons of MVMCP and ESPN I can never get a room because they are booked. How is it that they needed to make this change so more members can go to these events? There were no rooms available around these times as it is!

 

[Chuck S]

We stay at POP quite often (will be there next Friday for 5 nights) when we're out of points---or to supplement our DVC stays on the weekends. And we own an offsite timeshare, as well as 250 DVC points. So it could happen. But I was wondering if the other half of POP was going to be more like an all-suite resort (like the Family Suites at AS Music) ?

We like POP, too. I think, if it is ever developed, it will be family suites similar to All Stars. Although, I think it could be a pretty good DVC location, as well. The few empty buildings with rooms could be retro fitted into studios, and the food court/check-in building could easily be adapted to include a full service restaurant. That is assuming they are all still structurally sound. The main thing would be theming, they could tastefully theme villa buildings for different eras without using the giant icons.

 

[MiaSRN62]

they could tastefully theme villa buildings for different eras without using the giant icons.

Yes...maybe a little more in understated (value) elegance

 

[MELSMICE]

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 was just going to respond & say the exact same thing.

Like I said, we have 360 points. We try to use those points so we get at least 2, preferably 3 visits out of those points. We incorporate cash stays at other resorts during these stays many times.

Even if I had 500 points, I'd do the same thing. We have never used all 360 points for one trip. Actually, we started with 270 & have added on since then & even with only 270, we never used them all for one trip.

Also, we don't borrow. We have banked quite a few times but we don't like to borrow & have chosen not to. When the points are gone for that year, they're gone. If I wanted another trip, I'd pay cash for it.

 

[MELSMICE]

We like POP, too.

I'm glad to hear this. Myself & 2 of my DD's will be there for a quick trip in February. We are trying POP for the first time & I keep second guessing myself.

We have points remaining, but again, we will most likely return in October & use them at that time, so we chose to try POP.

We are used to staying at DVC, deluxe & sometimes a mod, but have never tried a value. We always use the amenities & spend a lot of time at the resorts, but I figured with cooler weather, shorter trip & only 3 out of 5 of us being there, we will probably do the parks quite a bit, so we're giving POP a try.

Thanks for reassuring me that I'll probably enjoy it.

 

[amcnj]

My first admission is I did not read all of the previous posts so apologize for any info repeats. Also, I only looked at OKW changes in points for 2010. In general, the changes were minor if looking at weekly totals, with swings of +/- 4 points for a week. The exceptions are Premier Season, where Studios and One Bedrooms went up by 7 and 8 points respectively for a week. Larger changes occuured in Grand Villas, but they were all decreases for a week. Looking at Sun-Thurs versus weekend rates, in every season in every room category the weekday rates went up and weekend rates dropped. A Sunday to Thursday stay is now 5 to 40 points more depending on the season and room. Weekends are less points than they were, but still are much more than a weekday(75-80% more). So was the intent solely to shift usage more to weekends or weeklong stays? If so why not make all nights the same number of points, or weekends only a few points more, if they feel local DVC users would then start booking weekends only and reversing the current situation. If most DVC members stick to their Sun-Thurs trip preference, what will be the efect? It will cost them more points for these stays and won't that lower future demand overall as there are now less "free" points out their for future stays?

Do those who use mainly weekday stays think the new point structure will encourage them to use more weekend or weeklong stays, or just take fewer trips?

 

[Anal Annie]

After chewing on this whole thing for several days now I am still just as irritated as I was in the beginning. We knew it was possible for them to re-allocate the points but never, ever expected it would done in such a poor manner and that it would be so radical. Personally, I think the way this whole thing has been handled by DVC is what's got me so upset. I understand the "why" behind it. It's just the whole deceptive MANNER of how it was handled that's irritating me so I still feel like ranting. DVC has not responded to my direct emails so I get more irritated by the day.

First of all, the announcement was poorly handled. I never did get an email about it and if it weren't for the DISBoards I wouldn't know about it until the next planners came out. It should have been done by a mailing that went to EVERYONE at the same time. It is not a minor change and should not just be buried on the website. DVC does NOT communicate effectively across the board to all members and I think this was indeed quite sneaky.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, it was not just a SLIGHT reallocation of 1 or 2 points here & there. It was major. IMO they still did not lower the weekends enough to make a big difference and it in fact hurts many. The fact is that if we were planning on any trip that was less than a full week it messes us up. Not only can I no longer plan a Sun-Thur trip but I used to be able to plan a 4 n extended weekend. But they didn't lower the weekend points enough to be able to do that since they raised the weekdays so much. They have now made a shorter stay economically unfeasible with airfare added on. Airfare costs are easier to recover if you're going for 4 n rather than only 3. They have knocked us from a 5 n weekday stay to a 4 n and from a 4 n weekend to a 3 n weekend. I'm not liking that idea. We just may now drop one entire trip and it will likely be the one we wanted to do over spring break 'cuz the airfare will be higher so why bother if we have to drop from 5 n to 4 n.

Third, many of us plan well ahead of time and have already made plans for 2009 AND 2010 based on the old charts. I think they should have announced this change further out than just BAM here's your 2010 charts. It should've been done 2 years ahead so we could have made informed decisions for 2009.

They TOTALLY screwed new BLT add-on purchasers with their timing. AND I think if the changes were announced properly they could have done it in a phased in manner by raising them only slightly for the first year and then finalizing it during the 2nd year. This would've allowed people to accept their fate, adjust accordingly and plan ahead as they are used to being able to do. If we'd known a month ago that we'd need more points for 2010 we probably wouldn't have booked airfare and 10 nights for 2009. We'd have spread out our useage differently. THAT pisses me off - we didn't have the information necessary to plan efficiently. I don't think the way this was done was fair. And my heart goes out to all of the BLT suckers who added on by Jan 15 based on the old charts. I SO wanted to do that and I would've been screwed up BIG TIME if we'd done that.

I feel we can no longer trust in the DVC product and feel that small add-on purchases are a deceptive sham. I for one have made my last DVC recommendation to friends and family. I would now in fact discourage anyone who asks me about it. I could not in good concious recommend a product that makes radical changes to the program without properly and personally informing its members of its intentions with fair notice. This is like your credit card company raising your interest rate via your monthly statement. You know they CAN but are not prepared for the bill when it comes. I don't care for the "take it or leave it" attitude. Not ready to sell yet but DVC has certainly lost some of its magic for me.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

There are several factors contributing, though. The sheer number of small contracts, savvy renters wanting to rent only Sun to Friday with larger point owners willing to accommodate them, more local owners reaching retirement age and staying weekdays instead of weekends, etc. The system could likely have absorbed one or two of these factors. It is the cumulative effect of them all that threw the room demand out of whack. remember the system was also designed with the idea that a certain percentage of owners would trade to other non-DVC locations. 150 points really doesn't allow for much of that, either.

The issue you have ignored, however, is that a "small point owner" has to be defiend by, at a minimum, the size of the unit they typically book. As has been pointed out, 150 points is a good-szed contract if you never book anything but a studio. If you want to rent GVs, on the other hand, not so much.

We own less than 200 points and stay for 10+ days on a single trip once a year in a studio, usually 3-4 weekend nights in each trip. Whiel we don't own a lot of points, I don't think we are behind any booking inbalance.

Lots of owners with less than 200 points is another unintended consequence of the flexibility inherant in the system. -- Suzanne

 

[TisBit]

Actually WL 1 br is ONE POINT HIGHER than BCV during all of October. If we are to equate hot and in demand with the percentage increase in points, then Vero must be the hottest since weekdays were reallocated across all seasons and units the full 20%

And that is kind of my point. We don't really know what is the hottest areas at what time. DVC should have that info and adjust accordingly. I hope that is the case, charge more points for high demand times/units and less for low demand. People who micro-manage their points will probably stay in the lesser desired units, while people that are more liberal with points will still book those high demand units.

If this is the actual changes, what you will find is more availability across the board, because people that go for peak units/times will burn up their points faster.

The point of my post was we don't know WHY certain point changes were made. Even Vero Beach, will people really stop going there because of the allocation? I doubt it, they seemed to be a pretty high demand. Similar to HHI during the spring/summer.

 

[TisBit]

There are several factors contributing, though. The sheer number of small contracts, savvy renters wanting to rent only Sun to Friday with larger point owners willing to accommodate them, more local owners reaching retirement age and staying weekdays instead of weekends, etc. The system could likely have absorbed one or two of these factors. It is the cumulative effect of them all that threw the room demand out of whack. remember the system was also designed with the idea that a certain percentage of owners would trade to other non-DVC locations. 150 points really doesn't allow for much of that, either.

I think even more than that, which has been hit on before, is people that modified their vacation style to match Disney point charts. How many people outside of DVC plan their Disney trips for Sun-Thurs? If a large percentage of DVC'ers modify their plans to hit these lower point times, which has obviously happened, that will cause the biggest imbalance. So the answer is what happened here, raise the weekdays a little, keep weekends a little more and gobble up those points.

 

[T-i-double-g-err]

My first admission is I did not read all of the previous posts so apologize for any info repeats. Also, I only looked at OKW changes in points for 2010. In general, the changes were minor if looking at weekly totals, with swings of +/- 4 points for a week. The exceptions are Premier Season, where Studios and One Bedrooms went up by 7 and 8 points respectively for a week. Larger changes occuured in Grand Villas, but they were all decreases for a week. Looking at Sun-Thurs versus weekend rates, in every season in every room category the weekday rates went up and weekend rates dropped. A Sunday to Thursday stay is now 5 to 40 points more depending on the season and room. Weekends are less points than they were, but still are much more than a weekday(75-80% more). So was the intent solely to shift usage more to weekends or weeklong stays? If so why not make all nights the same number of points, or weekends only a few points more, if they feel local DVC users would then start booking weekends only and reversing the current situation.

My understanding is that, per the various agreements in place, DVC may only modify points for a given room for a given night by 20% per year. So, even if they wanted to make a more drastic point reallocation, it could not do so in 1 year.

If most DVC members stick to their Sun-Thurs trip preference, what will be the efect? It will cost them more points for these stays and won't that lower future demand overall as there are now less "free" points out their for future stays?

If most DVC members stick to Sun-Thurs, I would expect reallocation again for 2011 charts to create an even greater incentive to shift demand. I'm thinking that DVC believes that the higher Sun-Thurs nights will reduce demand for those nights and the lower Fri-Sat nights will increase demand for those nights. I agree with your comment that a significant question remains as to whether the new point differential is enough to increase demand for Fri-Sat nights. My guess is that the changes will effect a reduced demand for Sun.-Thurs. nights by, as you suggest, reducing weekdays stays by some amount.

Do those who use mainly weekday stays think the new point structure will encourage them to use more weekend or weeklong stays, or just take fewer trips?

I just bought in at BLT right before the 1/15 "deadline" and sent my contracts back the day before the new point charts were released. As I purchased with a full week in mind at the time, my projected usage really isn't significantly impacted by the reallocation. So, I'm not in the category to whom you posed the question.

Even though my projected usage does not appear impacted, I have to say that the poor quality of communication is causing me to question whether I should continue with the purchase or exercise my cancellation rights within the 10-day grace period. Any DVC purchase is a fairly expensive proposition, and, even though I may agree with the concept of a reallocation of points to balance demand as may have been required under FL law, I take great exception with how poorly the change was effected with so little regard for, and prior notification to, the members.

 

[jamstew]

Do those who use mainly weekday stays think the new point structure will encourage them to use more weekend or weeklong stays, or just take fewer trips?

I usually stay 8 nights twice a year and will continue to do so. Weekend nights have been, and still will be, at a value or moderate. The only thing that changes for me is the number of points I have left over every year.

 

[tjkraz]

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

Possibly.

I don't know that I would point to the reallocation is the #1 factor pointing in that direction, however the surprisingly high charts for BLT and the Grand Californian suggest there is room for a more moderately priced DVC.

If most DVC members stick to their Sun-Thurs trip preference, what will be the efect?

Following the reallocation the weekdays now have capacity to absorb more points. So this change may be adequate to address the current problem even if patterns don't change to any noteworthy degree.

In one piece of correspondence to DVC I questioned whether they would commit to going a certain number of years without reallocating again. If they did, it would help eliminate some of the fear currently hanging over the heads of members. I'm curious to see if they will respond to that inquiry.

I think most statisticians would agree that another wave of changes wouldn't be appropriate until we work with the new system for several years. The 2011 charts will have to be published by January '10, and we won't even have complete data from the 2010 changes to use as the basis for further adjustments.

For that reason, a 2011 adjustment seems out of the question. But I think we should all move forward under the assumption that points will be reallocated every 8-10 years at a minimum. It would be helpful for DVC to commit to waiting at least a minimum number of years between reallocations (i.e. at least 5 years before another adjustment), or better yet to commit to a regular schedule. But I doubt they would agree to such a rigid structure.

Do those who use mainly weekday stays think the new point structure will encourage them to use more weekend or weeklong stays, or just take fewer trips?

I fall in that group and I'm looking at adding weekends to our stay. Honestly that's something I had been considering for some time. After all, it's cheaper to take 2 longer trips than 3 shorter trips--savings on transportation, vacation time, etc. The reallocation won't save me any points but since i'm compelled to pay for for the weekdays, adding a weekend is a lot more palatable than it was in the past.

Overall I think folks will choose the approach that best suits their needs. Some will add more points. Some will use banking and borrowing to amass more points periodically. Some will cut down their trips by a day. Some will reduce frequency.