Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[MiaSRN62]

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

Yeah....gotta love generic/form responses. I'm sure they just hit the "forward" button and everyone, no matter what they say or ask, will get this exact email.

Thanks for posting Anal Annie.

 

[toocherie]

Well, IIRC, we all got form "generic" email responses when we complained about the glassware issue too--and then started getting phone calls from MS/Customer Satisfaction when the hubbub went on.

Not sure in this circumstance, however, that there is much DVC can do--having indicated that they changed the charts in response to member demand it would be hard, I think, for them to reverse course and go back to the old points charts.

I continue to believe, however, that some allowance should be made for recent purchasers who are a few points shy of taking their intended vacation--however that could be accomplished.

 

[figment795]

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) ?

I agree with you I will be staying at POP as well if my points are low. With AP rates it can be a great deal.

 

[Tiger926]

I agree with you I will be staying at POP as well if my points are low. With AP rates it can be a great deal.

This is a solution for many, but for us, we decided once we bought DVC, no more cash to Disney. Although, we did break that rule in the spring when we paid cash for a cruise ressie with points (which we had to cancel due to baby's illness) and for a night at Contemporary - it was a deal though as for the $95.00 exchange fee plus points, we got upgraded to the MK view suite on room 14! It was breathtaking... The only reason we did it though is because we booked the cruise using Developer's points, and once we cancelled, we had to use them at non-DVC resort, so we chose Contemporary, and I just remembered we stayed 1 night at Poly as well. So, for 2x$95.00 exchange fees, it allowed us to keep our Developer's points, and we used those for a concierge stay at Yacht Club.

Anyway, now that this has happened, hubby and I have decided no money out of our pocket to Disney for cash rooms as that is silly - that is why we have DVC in the first place! We are working with the points we have, which means 1 less day at Disney, and ultimately less money spent by us on dining and other stuff.

Tiger

 

[MiaSRN62]

With AP rates it can be a great deal.

True Figment. I'm staying there next week for an AP rate of $54 standard/$64 preferred. I took the preferred. I don't mind saving money on cash nights. My DVC stays are already booked for May and Aug. So I'm out of points unless I want to borrow which I do not want to do. If I start borrowing considering I'll be 30+ points short in 2010 I don't think I'll ever catch up.

 

[Carl Aird]

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

I'm not sure they are interested in contract sales to make money
I thought Disney made money by getting us (DVC members) to stay in the park and spend money on tickets,food,etc

 

[Capn Dave]

We usually stay at Saratoga the points are going from 97 to 105 for a week in a studio.
Am I reading this correctly? I thought the whole point of buying a time share was to buy future vacations at todays prices. If they keep raising the points required it makes no sense to purchase.
Is this legal?

 

[figment795]

Anyway, now that this has happened, hubby and I have decided no money out of our pocket to Disney for cash rooms as that is silly - that is why we have DVC in the first place! We are working with the points we have, which means 1 less day at Disney, and ultimately less money spent by us on dining and other stuff.

Tiger[/quote]

I agree, we also have DVC so we did not pay rack rate rooms. However when DH and I purchaced in 2004 we did not know that DVC has the right to change the point stucture whenever they see fit. That changes our value of DVC. If our guide whould have said the point charts could change by 20% on any given year. I am not sure we would have 370 points at SSR and 230 at BLT. We have plenty of points to ride out the changes to the 2010 point charts but what happens in 2011 and beyond.

 

[Dean]

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

Less sales doesn't automatically mean less income and fewer points. There is a certain amount of cost involved in every sale, every add on. It's likely DVC made no money whatsoever on a 25 point sale and little on a 50 point sale. But those sales did fill the void to help move a resort through and get dues paying members on board for that resort. The question I can't answer, and none of us can, is what is the optimum balance. Given the retail requirements to new members, I'd say it's in the 150-160 pt range for DVD to make any significant money and the only way the smaller sales make sense is because they're to existing members with LESS inherent costs. Thus if each DVC resort sold out slower but for larger contracts and for a slightly trimmed sales staff, they'd likely be as well or better off. Again, the question is where is the break point to make it worth fooling with and I'd argue that from what we've seen it's in the 100 pt range to existing members due to some lower admin costs and 150-160 for new members. Anything else is likely a loss leader. Thus the idea that small point buyers, of which I am one (4*25), are helping out everyone else is simply wrong IMO.

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.

You should have expected nothing else. Any nonstandard response runs the risk of not accurately portraying the decided upon response. Plus I think the response is accurate. My understanding is it's DVD's policy for the guides not to respond to email. I know some do but most don't. DVD will likely look the other way up to a point if they violate this policy but they are putting their job on the line if they do.

 

[figment795]

We usually stay at Saratoga the points are going from 97 to 105 for a week in a studio.
Am I reading this correctly? I thought the whole point of buying a time share was to buy future vacations at todays prices. If they keep raising the points required it makes no sense to purchase.
Is this legal?

I think this is why there are so many emotions on the board about this topic. I know when we purchased we had no idea that they could change and raise the points as well. Now if they decide to change the time of year well like to go all together then it would be time to sell. For now we are waiting.

 

[Dean]

We usually stay at Saratoga the points are going from 97 to 105 for a week in a studio.
Am I reading this correctly? I thought the whole point of buying a time share was to buy future vacations at todays prices. If they keep raising the points required it makes no sense to purchase.
Is this legal?

While they may have raised your planned stay, they decreased someone else's. Not only is it legal, DVC is required to do so in certain situations. The only way to guarantee you'll get a week each time is to buy a non points timeshare.

 

[Sheribo]

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).

I got the same email. No surprise that they're saying they made the changes to reflect member requests for weekend stays. I wonder if DVC members would still be requesting lower point weekends if they knew that it meant the weekdays would go up. I also wonder what the problems would be in actually asking the membership to vote or express an opinion on the changes before they are implemented.

 

[Dean]

I also wonder what the problems would be in actually asking the membership to vote or express an opinion on the changes before they are implemented.

Several problems with that approach. It would imply there was a choice when there was not. It would create false expectations. It would also suggest uncertainly on DVC's side which would lend more fuel to the fire raging here now. If you survey members or to go the extreme of having a vote, you only give them choices that you deem workable to solve the issue or problem at hand. In this case the choices would likely have been something that equated to a min stay of 7 nights for most people or a re-allocation. There are ways to have a de-facto min stay of 7 nights by staying within the framework of the POS. They could also liberalize the banking and borrowing rules but in the long run this would likely create more problems than it is worth and it doesn't fix the problem, only delay the requirement to deal with the underlying issue.

 

[Sheribo]

Several problems with that approach. It would imply there was a choice when there was not. It would create false expectations. It would also suggest uncertainly on DVC's side which would lend more fuel to the fire raging here now. If you survey members or to go the extreme of having a vote, you only give them choices that you deem workable to solve the issue or problem at hand. In this case the choices would likely have been something that equated to a min stay of 7 nights for most people or a re-allocation. There are ways to have a de-facto min stay of 7 nights by staying within the framework of the POS. They could also liberalize the banking and borrowing rules but in the long run this would likely create more problems than it is worth and it doesn't fix the problem, only delay the requirement to deal with the underlying issue.

Yes, I understand that. Do you really think that they originally posted the points charts in error or was it a test?

 

[Dean]

Yes, I understand that. Do you really think that they originally posted the points charts in error or was it a test?

I suspect that it was simply timing. Someone posted the charts prior to when they were supposed to or possibly before they had been triple checked. I wouldn't think for a second it was a trial balloon.

 

[Chuck S]

Yes, I understand that. Do you really think that they originally posted the points charts in error or was it a test?

I'm thinking someone in IT was getting the website ready, and it went live before the intended time. I don't think the "charts" were in error, I think the posting of them at that particular moment was an error. They probably wanted the promo email with the change notation and the charts to go up at the same time.

 

[photobob]

I'm thinking someone in IT was getting the website ready, and it went live before the intended time. I don't think the "charts" were in error, I think the posting of them at that particular moment was an error. They probably wanted the promo email with the change notation and the charts to go up at the same time.

I think your probably right.
BTW-I got the generic email today as well.

 

[drusba]

I'm thinking someone in IT was getting the website ready, and it went live before the intended time. I don't think the "charts" were in error, I think the posting of them at that particular moment was an error. They probably wanted the promo email with the change notation and the charts to go up at the same time.

There were hoping to get a few more BLT and AKV sales past the 10 day cancellation date.

 

[BeccaG]

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.

My husband just got a marketing e-mail for the holiday inn timeshare, one or two of which are located in Florida and one "minutes away" from WDW. So to answer your question, yes there appears to be a value time share industry!! Who would have thunk!!?

 

[mickeymom629]

thought the whole point of buying a time share was to buy future vacations at todays prices.

Our guide did tell us this, so I totally agree with you. She specifically said that was what was great about buying into DVC.

If I now need to use more points to get what I usually book because of the 2010 chart, then my points have lost their value and I am now "paying" more than yesterday's prices.

The fact that the change has some people using less points and now "spending" less than yesterday's points is irrelevant - it's just a bonus for them that they didn't expect.