Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[thepops]

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.

How do we know that they didn't do exactly what you suggest, and that another change is already planned for next year's charts ?

 

[SuzanneSLO]

. . . . 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. . . .

I think it depends on whether the 2010 adjustment gets DVC to its current goal or whether these changes were just a stepping stone to a another goal, such as moving some booking periods like early Dec into another Season. If the latter, the ability to reach this goal with a single reallocation was limited for some rooms sizes at some resorts by the 20% limit. If that is the case, I would expect more reallocations sooner than 8 to 10 years form now.

Given that all studios at BWV appear to be sold out from Dec 6-11 (5 weekdays and 1 weekend) at not quite the 10 month mark, there is anecdotal evidence that a Seasonal adjustment is needed as much as a weekday/weekend adjustment. -- Suzanne
-- Suzanne

 

[dzorn]

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.

A person staying in a value very well may have money. They just choose to spend it differently. Just as I am sure some that stay Deluxe cannot afford it.

Denise in MI

 

[Belle & Ariel]

I agree, Disney should never have lowered the points to 150 minimum, and should have aggressively used ROFR to repurchase smaller add-on contracts, unless they were being bought by an existing member.

I don't understand the 150 point comment.
We were told by Disney in August that at their 160 points, we could vacation 13 nights a year in a studio. We actually went resale for 150. With the reallocation, I can have a 6 and a 7 night stay in a studio each year, once in May and once in September or December, which are our times to vacation. So we are getting what they advertised for 160 points for only 150.
DH only gets 3 weeks vacation, and as we do other things, too, 2 weeks is all we can spend at Disney. I know there will be years we do not want to go twice.
So why do you not like the 150 point minimum? I would not have bought if we had to buy more.
I highly respect your opinions on things here and am not trying to argue; I am just curious.

 

[Chuck S]

I don't understand the 150 point comment.
We were told by Disney in August that at their 160 points, we could vacation 13 nights a year in a studio. We actually went resale for 150. With the reallocation, I can have a 6 and a 7 night stay in a studio each year, once in May and once in September or December, which are our times to vacation. So we are getting what they advertised for 160 points for only 150.
DH only gets 3 weeks vacation, and as we do other things, too, 2 weeks is all we can spend at Disney. I know there will be years we do not want to go twice.
So why do you not like the 150 point minimum? I would not have bought if we had to buy more.
I highly respect your opinions on things here and am not trying to argue; I am just curious.

My later posts detail the problems with selling high numbers of small contracts.

See Post #1712 and Post #1716

 

[KLR-wlv]

My later posts detail the problems with selling high numbers of small contracts.

See Post #1712 and Post #1716

SO you are suggesting Disney go to a weeks timeshare? If there are 100,000 points to sell in a resort - what difference is it if 100 people buy 1000 point contracts or 1000 people buy 100 point contracts? Obviously everyone doesn't get the same week in either scenario. I personally don't want to go to Disney every Christmas week or spring break (in my 8 years of membership I've only gone once at christmas, twice at spring break). I just haven't EVER experienced not getting a reservation so I don't know who all these people are who can't get a reservation. Since we're all talking hypotheticals, since no one has any real facts from disney, I don't know why one person's theory is correct over anyone else's...

 

[Anal Annie]

How do we know that they didn't do exactly what you suggest, and that another change is already planned for next year's charts ?

Well, if they pull something like THAT then they should've been tellin' us up front about it NOW. And if they do this sneaky number AGAIN in another year... We'll probably be tempted to put ours up for sale so we can buy a real grown-up timeshare. For the top dollar paid for DVC we don't need these planning headaches and the anxiety.


I have seen at least 2 DVC commercials today on TV. I don't recall EVER seeing commercials before for DVC. Thought that was kinda odd.

 

[bobbiwoz]

... I just haven't EVER experienced not getting a reservation so I don't know who all these people are who can't get a reservation. Since we're all talking hypotheticals, since no one has any real facts from disney, I don't know why one person's theory is correct over anyone else's...

I have no idea why but there were no studios anywhere available for Sunday December 7th...I called up to 2 days before, then gave up and stayed at Pop!

Bobbi

 

[Belle & Ariel]

My later posts detail the problems with selling high numbers of small contracts.

See Post #1712 and Post #1716

I read those and see your point about so many owners competing for prime times--something I did not think about.

But what is the person who goes to the beach, cruises, and still wants a small investment in Disney to do?
We are staying longer than usual to burn banked 2007 points this year and taking in-laws next year on 2008 points. We will still have 2008 points to bank. So I cannot imagine having more than 150.
I think Disney is smart to sell the smaller contracts. I think the person who does not go to WDW several times a year might make that one trip more "magical" ie. spend more money on character meals, souvenirs; where some who go several times a year find ways to economize by eating in and not spending so much on dining and souvenirs as well as buying APs.

 

[lugnut33]

My later posts detail the problems with selling high numbers of small contracts.

See Post #1712 and Post #1716

Hence my comment about a 150 point minimun reservation because a person could own 300 points and break it into several vacations all planned during the week. It makes no difference if somebody with 120 points or somebody with 500 points stays Sunday through Friday only, it costs the same amount of points on the charts.

Or require a Friday night or Saturday night stay on every reservation.

Something in the back of my mind keeps coming forward and it pertains to a comment a previous poster made about this being a way for DVC to market to locals in the area that are likely to want to do weekend stays. Maybe DVC sees that as an easy growth area and lowered the weekend points to accomodate that?

 

[Dean]

Ok I realize there is a bias on this forum against low point owners.

I don't think that' true at all. There are some realities of owning a low number of points just like there are realities based on home resort owned.

I completely understand this logic, but it is based on the assumption of 100% occupancy during the weekdays. Is that true? Are all DVC rooms booked during the weekdays?

I bet those BWV view rooms, BCV, Savannah view AKL/AKV, December VWL, and all the Epcots at food wine are hard to get. That seems like seasonal changes need to be made. But were OKW weekends just so darn expensive that nobody booked there? Did they really need to be adjusted?

Because we don't have the information that is needed to understand this, we are susceptible to the whims of management. We don't really know if it is in our best interest or not. Unless of course the goal is to give a break to locals who can utilize the weekends more frequently. In that case, it is understandable and logical. Because no matter how you look at any of this the weekend points are/were really high.

It doesn't assume 100% occupancy, only occupancy high enough to effect availability. For sold our resorts there really should be enough points in play to reserve the entire resort the entire year outside basically maintenance and upgrade issues. This is true taking into account exchanges because the number of exchange points given up should even out as well. So if there are low times, there are by definition, times that too high. While we don't have exact numbers, I think we have enough info to know that weekends are lower than weekdays overall. Even if we had the books, we'd still be subject to DVC's whims up to a point.

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.

It's likely that the seasonal demand between resorts is similar, esp if you account for OKW and SSR being lower points than the rest overall. This will NEVER be an exact science and there will likely be some variation that cannot be accounted for. Regardless DVC has the obligation to even out the demand as much as possible but it will never be perfect.

 

[tjkraz]

I think it depends on whether the 2010 adjustment gets DVC to its current goal or whether these changes were just a stepping stone to a another goal, such as moving some booking periods like early Dec into another Season. If the latter, the ability to reach this goal with a single reallocation was limited for some rooms sizes at some resorts by the 20% limit. If that is the case, I would expect more reallocations sooner than 8 to 10 years form now.

Given that all studios at BWV appear to be sold out from Dec 6-11 (5 weekdays and 1 weekend) at not quite the 10 month mark, there is anecdotal evidence that a Seasonal adjustment is needed as much as a weekday/weekend adjustment. -- Suzanne
-- Suzanne

I agree, Suzanne. I'm among those who think rearranging the seasons should have actually been a higher priority than rebalancing weekdays and weekends, but that's splitting hairs since they were both needed.

Still, I do think DVC would be best served to wait a few years before making ANY other changes, regardless of how warranted they may seem. The current realignment is certain to have an impact on member demand. A second adjustment is necessary, but if done properly it may be the last such adjustment for quite some time.

In fact, if weekend occupancy increases beyond what they project in this 2010 reallocation, the next adjustment may see some of the higher-priced weekday rates go back down a point or two.

 

[Dean]

Yeah, Disney didn't do it for money!! LOL. Trust me, they do everything for money and shareholder value as that is what drives large corporations like Disney. Having that Florida law gives them the means to do it. Just like you say it's written in the POS, so is the law of corporate greed. It's just ridiculous to say this isn't money driven considering the other changes that came along with it. And trust me, those who are getting burned by it will see it as greed, that's the way it works and no Florida law can change that. Don't forget, perception is 9/10 reality.

You do know you have the right to go look at the books don't you. To my knowledge, I'm the only one that has ever done so and as of Sept, 2006, I know it to be true. IF I felt it was mainly about the money, I'd sell and walk away. If you feel that way, you should do the same. I'm probably one of the most distrusting and cynical members here and I think this is not about the money at all, you're welcome to feel differently of course.

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.

The regulators are more about the structure than the financing. The proper test regarding the payment method IMO would be nonbinding arbitration then legal action per the POS rules. I realize the problem because if they extended it by asking for participation, the rest got a free pass the way the legal action is noted. The only other way would likely be to sell new and separate contracts.

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

IMO a shift that results in a 25 points increase for a weekday only stay for a 2 BR would not be a large adjustment in my book.

 

[Dean]

What if they make a 150 point minimum reservation requirement?

It's likely too late to do that, it would have needed to be in place at present. But you could potentially give those reserving a full week a head start by letting them reserve a week or month earlier. Or you could jack up the minimum stay to 3-5 days and require a weekend night for some situations.

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.

The demand was still not anywhere near equal with points differences. Maybe buy where you want to stay will be more important than ever.

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

I've owned as many as 885 points and only stayed 3 weekend nights ever on points. Still there are advantages that a larger points owner has. You can reserve your home resort then a different resort at the 7 month window and wait list holding both reservations. OR you can reserve a larger and smaller unit OR multiple weeks to give you more options later.

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.

I think a large segment of timeshare owners, esp resale owners are value oriented. Bluegreen and Wyndham certainly fit this segment well. Marriott created a whole company for this purpose. It failed but I think it's because they didn't make it value enough rather than that the concept was bad. This is in large part why most of our stays are from exchanges and how our 15 day trip to HI and out 11 day trip to Aruba were under $2500 for 2 including air and all other costs including indirect timeshare expenses. I'll admit that in part, it's a game to me, basically a form of gambling. But it keeps me occupied and out of any real trouble and my wife enjoys the perks associated with it.

 

[MiaSRN62]

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'm in this group as well. This allocation will not make me more likely to stay weekends. It just doesn't work for me. I'm already now for 2010, 30+ points short due to the allocation. Staying weekends will only put me even further into a deficit. Even though the weekend points are lower, the increase in weeknights cancels it out. So I'm *guessing*, DVC was hoping those of us that stay during the weeknights will drop days ? Or add points ? Otherwise....I don't know how they thought we would have increased interest in weekends when we're already short with our weeknight points due to allocation ? So I really am thinking they hope we "go away" or something. Because this allocation was clearly done to help those that already budgeted for weekend stays....have a pattern of staying over one or more weekends.....and it was to give them a break.

So I will be one that will either stay less days (but doubt this because the more I think about it I just get ticked off). I'm more likely to downsize villa size and stay the same amount during the weeknights. I might have to switch from a studio to a 1 or 2 bedroom during my 5 night weekly stay----but so be it----I have no other choice. And I highly doubt I'm the only weeknighter that will do this.........

Maria

 

[Dean]

How do we know that they didn't do exactly what you suggest, and that another change is already planned for next year's charts ?

Possibly but I doubt it. I'd expect them to make the change and evaluate the outcome. While I'm sure they have a ton of data about reservation trends from their own system, hotel trade organizations and ARDA, they won't know for certain exactly how this effect will affect the reservation patterns. I would personally not expect major changes going forward other than you MAY get some shifts in dates for certain seasons, esp early Dec moving up to Dream season at some point with something else decreasing OR a leveling of Dream, Choice and Adventure. It think anything from here will be fine tuning. Still, if your time is the one affected, you may be just as upset as some are now. And to make ANY change has a lot of unintended consequences. Say you want to further shift weekends and weekdays. If you raise a studio by 1 points and a 1 BR by 2 points (2 or 3 points per night increase for a 2 BR), you've still got to decrease weekends and unless you make Fri and Sat different points costs like at HH, you've still go to find where to even the change out. To be honest, if they do have to make any further weekday/weekend changes, I'd expect Fri and Sat to become different costs.

I too feel DVD made a mistake allowing smaller purchases, not necessarily the 150 point sales but certainly anything under 100 points even for add ons was a poor move from a system standpoint. Another approach they could have taken, and many other systems have used, is allow one time points purchases (rentals) directly. OF course this is still a viable alternative if they so chose.

SO you are suggesting Disney go to a weeks timeshare? If there are 100,000 points to sell in a resort - what difference is it if 100 people buy 1000 point contracts or 1000 people buy 100 point contracts? Obviously everyone doesn't get the same week in either scenario. I personally don't want to go to Disney every Christmas week or spring break (in my 8 years of membership I've only gone once at christmas, twice at spring break). I just haven't EVER experienced not getting a reservation so I don't know who all these people are who can't get a reservation. Since we're all talking hypotheticals, since no one has any real facts from disney, I don't know why one person's theory is correct over anyone else's...

From a system standpoint there are many differences and higher costs to management for more members with less points. One with 1000 points MIGHT reserve a 2 BR or 3 BR unit for a full week or more (ane many will) while a 100 points owner is VERY unlikely to do so. It's likely that those who own smaller contracts actually make more phone calls per member (not just per point) than does the larger points owner and needs MORE hand holding. Not to say it's right or wrong from a members standpoint, just that there are consequences to having smaller contract members. IMO, DVC should change the fee structure to a minimum cost per master contract plus a lower per point fee. Something like $250 per contract plus $4 per point rather than $5 per point. That way those who own smaller contracts pay more of their actual costs to the system rather than being subsidized by the larger point owners. I'll also say that anything that encourages owners to reserve a full 7 days has many benefits to the system and to a large portion of the membership in general.

Well, if they pull something like THAT then they should've been tellin' us up front about it NOW.

No way is a company going to do that, it's a poor business model to do so. You make your plans and decisions then you roll them out. You don't say anything until something is set because you might have to change it later. You advertise the things people will like, you put out the changes many won't and move on. No "what do you think", town hall meetings or easy options for people to complain. The you measure by surveys and by member retention and new sales.

 

[Chuck S]

I read those and see your point about so many owners competing for prime times--something I did not think about.

But what is the person who goes to the beach, cruises, and still wants a small investment in Disney to do?
We are staying longer than usual to burn banked 2007 points this year and taking in-laws next year on 2008 points. We will still have 2008 points to bank. So I cannot imagine having more than 150.
I think Disney is smart to sell the smaller contracts. I think the person who does not go to WDW several times a year might make that one trip more "magical" ie. spend more money on character meals, souvenirs; where some who go several times a year find ways to economize by eating in and not spending so much on dining and souvenirs as well as buying APs.

The system could absorb some small contracts and function fine, it could absorb a number savvy renters wanting Sun to Friday, too. But Disney also surely counted on a goodly percentage of those that originally purchase 150 point contracts to also add-on once they tried out the DVC system. By simply reading the boards, and seeing the number of 150 owners, or those that bought "just enough" for Sun to Friday in their desired season/room size, and seeing and in creasing number of the Rent/Trade board renters wanting Sun to Friday rentals, indicates that Sun to Friday demand became unbalanced. Again, it isn't only the 150 point contracts, they were one of several contributing factors.

DVC and Disney are legally two separate operating companies, and legally, under timeshare law, DVC's responsibility is to balance demand, not consider dining income, character meals, park income, and other ancillary spending habits of their members, no matter whether or not it benefits Disney. While often decisions can be of mutual benefit, others may not benefit Disney as a whole.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

. . . But Disney also surely counted on a goodly percentage of those that originally purchase 150 point contracts to also add-on once they tried out the DVC system. By simply reading the boards, and seeing the number of 150 owners, or those that bought "just enough" for Sun to Friday in their desired season/room size, and seeing and in creasing number of the Rent/Trade board renters wanting Sun to Friday rentals, indicates that Sun to Friday demand became unbalanced. Again, it isn't only the 150 point contracts, they were one of several contributing factors. . .

Of course, one of the other impacts of not allowing smaller contracts is that there would likely have been a significantly fewer sales of DVC points. I know that one of the stumbling blocks I had when we first looked into DVC was the then 230 point minimum. I still do not feel that owning that many points would be cost effective for my DH and I.

With fewer sales, you would undoubtedly see fewer new resorts coming online.

-- Suzanne

 

[Cmbar]

Of course, one of the other impacts of not allowing smaller contracts is that there would likely have been a significantly fewer sales of DVC points. I know that one of the stumbling blocks I had when we first looked into DVC was the then 230 point minimum. I still do not feel that owning that many points would be cost effective for my DH and I.

With fewer sales, you would undoubtedly see fewer new resorts coming online.

-- Suzanne

Not to mention that the cost to buy in at lower point structure allowed them to significantly raise the price per point. Lets just say there is a breakeven point of where most feel comfortable spending on a timeshare. If that number is 20,000 then people who bought back in the days of 230 minimum at 52.00 a point only spent around 12,000 so they could easily by the minimum and more. Now a person who wants to buy a 160 point contract will need to spend close 18,000 for 30% less points. Now for a family to do the point structure that allows a good minimum (lets say 230 again) it would cost 26,000. So the owners who are advocating a minimum buy in that was higher have a great point that it would allow the system to work better, however the price per point has gone up to a point that make it difficult to get new buyers to buy in with that many points (this also benefits the older buyers as well as the value of their 230 points has gone up).

 

[Anal Annie]

Well, I finally just now received 2 emails back in response to my emails that I sent last week. They are identical canned responses that do not directly address my specific complaints. One was from Member Services and the other was from Member Satisfaction. My original comments were below in the emails so I could tell which one came in response to which one. The one from Member Satisfaction was in response to the email that I had sent to my guide. So apparently the guides have been instructed to forward all complaints to Member Satisfaction and not to reply themselves (no real surprise there).

Here is their generic reply:

Thank you for contacting Disney Vacation Club.

We appreciate your feedback regarding the adjustments we have made to
the Vacation Points Charts for 2010. Changes have been made which
reflect the changes in vacationing patterns of our Members. Disney
Vacation Club Members have expressed that they would like to be able to
use their Membership on weekends, but felt the Vacation Points in
general were too high on Fridays and Saturdays. The changes also benefit
our Disney Vacation Club Members through managing expenses, and also
ensure a more balanced demand throughout the year. Some Vacation Points
totals per week have changed slightly up or down. Additionally, the
nightly Vacation Points have been reallocated at some Disney Vacation
Club Resorts. Any increase in nightly Vacation Point requirements is
offset by a corresponding decrease. However, the total number of
Vacation Points for any particular Disney Vacation Club Resort will
never change.

The feedback we receive from our Members is important to us, and your
comments will be appropriately noted.

Thank you again for sharing your concern.

Sincerely,

Disney Vacation Club Member Services

This generic response only pisses me off more that they cannot directly address my personal comments and concerns NOR do they appreciate me as a member as they feebly attempt to indicate.