Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[jakenjess]

I've been reading this thread with great interest; it's really a fascinating give and take! We're one of the small point owners (160) that is really getting hurt by the reallocation. As I posted many, many pages ago, the seven weeknights in a 1 BR (we're moving to POR for the weekend) for April 2009 will be 25 points more in 2010, not an insignificant amount for most owners.

I completely understand DVC is well within its rights to do this, and maybe it is the right thing to do, but I admit I'm very disappointed. First, we were planning on a small add-on at BLT, about 30 points, during our April visit; then they raised the minimum. I didn't feel comfortable adding on at that time because of other financial obligations, so we lost out there. Now the reallocation means even fewer DVC nights for us in the future.

We always stayed on WDW property for our non-DVC nights, but at this point I think we'll be better off to go off site, probably to a Universal resort for the front of the line privileges, and enjoy the other attractions Orlando has to offer.

 

[tjkraz]

If they had left some weeks in the year with the same points, that might have been a little better - at least the Sun.-Thurs. members would have some options at "yesterday's" prices.

I don't see how DVC could have done this even if they wanted to.

The reallocation must be based upon demand patterns. They don't have the flexibility to make it a more gradual change as some posters have suggested, or to leave some seasons untouched as an olive branch to members.

If this reallocation were to come under scrutiny by state regulators or even legal challenge, DVC needs to prove that the calculations were accurately based upon historical demand. Period.

 

[MiaSRN62]

The reallocation must be based upon demand patterns. They don't have the flexibility to make it a more gradual change as some posters have suggested, or to leave some seasons untouched as an olive branch to members.

If this reallocation were to come under scrutiny by state regulators or even legal challenge, DVC needs to prove that the calculations were accurately based upon historical demand. Period.

Understood Tim. But why did they wait until now to do this ? I would venture to guess that "demand patterns" have been pretty much this way for awhile. For example, Food and Wine and early Dec have always been BIG Dvc Member booking times. Weekends have been high for a decade....why change now ? I'm just wondering why this couldn't have been down more gradually and spread out more evenly over time to give Members time to adjust.

Why wait until now....give us so little notice....and immediately following the price increase on Jan 15. So yes, I can see they had to do this....but it's the "how" they did it that gets me.

Maria

 

[mickeymom629]

If this reallocation were to come under scrutiny by state regulators or even legal challenge, DVC needs to prove that the calculations were accurately based upon historical demand. Period.

Well, there are definitely differences in "historical demands" for different seasons, so I don't see why they couldn't have just adjusted the points for certain weeks and not others. That's why they have different points during different seasons to begin with.

 

[keishashadow]

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

DVC/Disney has always been about charging a premium for being on-site.

If you can sacrifice being on-site, a world (no pun intended) of options opens up. You can rent a nearby 3-4 bedroom vacation home for a week with twice the space of a DVC villa and a private pool for less than the cost of the DVC maintenance fees for the same duration. Hotel rooms a couple miles from WDW are 1/3 to 1/4 the price of on-site.

location, location & onsite percs is what drives the rate & the classification of 'deluxe' resorts in many of the onsite hotels

the DVC units r very nice & we look forward to visiting for many years in the future, yet def not what i consider comparable in quality & service to true deluxe accommodations outside 'the world'

Like Maria said, I am not planning to drag the DVC brand thru the mud. But they sure did cure my addonitis and I no longer feel the need to "share the magic" of the "best kept secret". We knew they could re-allocate but never expected them to change so much so that we can no longer afford the same vacation this week that we could last week. This is certainly something I am not going to BRAG ABOUT to someone who asks me about DVC. In a social setting I used to talk it up and offer my guides name and I have passed on their marketing materials to refer people when they've sent them. That marketing crap will hit the recycling bin on the way in from the mailbox now. I won't even bring it inside my house.

And if the point charts for VGC are any indication I can tell you that they've also busted my bubble for ever staying at (or buying) Ko'Olina.

I feel like I just won the consolation prize.

agree 100%, i won't bad mouth DVC by sharing in an unsolicited fashion as to what i feel is the new best kept secret - DVC likes to tinker w/things to enhance our experience ; yet my cheerleading days r over

speaking as a realtor, positive word of mouth is imperative to generate repeat business/referrals; will be interesting to see how this shakes out sales wise

 

[tjkraz]

Understood Tim. But why did they wait until now to do this ? I would venture to guess that "demand patterns" have been pretty much this way for awhile. For example, Food and Wine and early Dec have always been BIG Dvc Member booking times. Weekends have been high for a decade....why change now ? I'm just wondering why this couldn't have been down more gradually and spread out more evenly over time to give Members time to adjust.

I wish I could answer that. Absolutely no idea. However it seems like members have mostly benefited from DVC's slow response.

An OKW One Bedroom in Dream Season went from 20 pts to 24. Yes that is a radical change. However, even if DVC had been more responsive to member patterns, it's entirely possible that the points would have gone to 21 per night in 1999, 22 per night in 2002, 23 per night in 2006 and now 24 night in 2010.

That gradual increase may have better prepared members for these changes, but it would undoubtedly have cost us more over those years. (And by "us" I mean we who have been benefiting from the low weekday points while they apparently remained skewed.)

Why wait until now....give us so little notice....and immediately following the price increase on Jan 15. So yes, I can see they had to do this....but it's the "how" they did it that gets me.

I wish I could answer those questions.

A few pages ago Dean made a comment to suggest that DVD (the sales branch which sets prices) and DVC (the management company which would handle the reallocation) do not communicate as much as some may think.

There may be some logic to that. Consider this: Wouldn't it have been to DVD's advantage to acknowledge the reallocation before the BLT minimum went up to 100 points? People who find themselves 10-20 points short now are not going to spend $10k on a 100 point contract. However, a large percentage of them almost certainly would have added a few more points to their small BLT add-on. Others may have bit the bullet and bought another 25 points to get back where they need to be.

Some may think this supposed lack of communications is a crock--and I'm not sure I buy it myself. But I really do think DVC would have sold more points--particularly at BLT--if they had disclosed the reallocation a couple of weeks before the minimum increased.

Well, there are definitely differences in "historical demands" for different seasons, so I don't see why they couldn't have just adjusted the points for certain weeks and not others. That's why they have different points during different seasons to begin with.

Demand certainly varies from one season to another (i.e. Christmas week demand is higher than mid-September), but the reallocation suggests that weekday demand has been much higher than weekends across all seasons.

 

[BroganMc]

1) how did you calculate for lock-off's, all as 2 Bdrms, as studios and 1 Bdrms, or a mix of both? If any resort calculates them different I would imagine it would be BCV as there is a difference with the dedicateds having the 2 queens in the second bedrooms.

SSR has dedicated 2bedrooms with 2 queens as well. That's why I calculated the dedicated 2bedrooms differently from lockoffs. But Dean insists they should be considered the same.

I'm reading my contracts too and it still doesn't add up. If you count all 2bedroom configurations the same then the total point count for the resort goes down significantly (by several thousand). If you count lockoffs and dedicateds separately then the total point count goes up significantly. The balance just isn't there which is why so many people are reporting a loss. You'd think if it was balanced then while you'd take a shorter trip one season (or go to a smaller unit), you could increase the length or unit size of a trip a different season. But that's just not happening.

I'd love to see the numbers DVC used for calculating total points in a resort and how those reallocated charts come to a 0 difference. Any increase, no matter how minimal, is a direct violation of the contract. Any decrease seems like it would be shortchanging the program at large.

 

[photobob]

Understood Tim. But why did they wait until now to do this ? I would venture to guess that "demand patterns" have been pretty much this way for awhile. For example, Food and Wine and early Dec have always been BIG Dvc Member booking times. Weekends have been high for a decade....why change now ? I'm just wondering why this couldn't have been down more gradually and spread out more evenly over time to give Members time to adjust.

Why wait until now....give us so little notice....and immediately following the price increase on Jan 15. So yes, I can see they had to do this....but it's the "how" they did it that gets me.

Maria

Maria, I agree completely. While I knew point allocations could change, I never expected them to drop this bomb. I can't wait for the next way they are going to enhance my DVC experience. "Due to increasing demands by the DVC members to help the slumping economy we have have decided to suspend the DVC AP discount!!!"

 

[DVC92]

A few pages ago Dean made a comment to suggest that DVD (the sales branch which sets prices) and DVC (the management company which would handle the reallocation) do not communicate as much as some may think.

Since Jim Lewis is the president of DVD and DVC, I find that a litte hard to believe unless he has multiple personalities. However, that could be the case because he does seem to have a personality defect relating to communication.

 

[dcfromva]

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.

I keep seeing folks mention DVC's legal responsibility is to balance demand.
But, then there are folks who have said it has been unbalanced for years and DVC didn't want "to take the heat". BCV came on line in 2002, SSR in 2004, AKV in 2008 and BLT in 2009.... All sold with points seemingly "out of balance". And, what about AKV and BLT-points changing before occupancy has been established?

I do not believe the points have been out of balance all this time and DVC has been shirking their legal responsibility. (BTW, for whatever reason, nearly everytime I try to make a reservation for the weekend at less than 7 months, I end up on the W-L). I do not believe these recent point adjustments are for "seasonal" demand based on occupancy, either, as called out in the contract. (Or, they wouldn't be adjusting AKV and BLT)

I believe DVC is taking steps to "encourage" folks to stay 7 nights. This goes along with the booking policy--7nights from check-in which gives folks making a 7 night reservation a preference. It goes along with 2 WL per UY which will discourage folks from making several smaller reservations which they might end up on the WL. I think 7night stays would lower the overhead (fewer full cleanings by housekeeping, fewer calls to member services--if you use your 240 points on one reservation vs 3 or 4 reservations, et'c.)

The problem with moving towards 7 night stays is Disney has marketed and sold DVC on less than 7 night stays. Even now, if your buy in is at 160 or even 200 points, it is probably not going to be enough for a 1 week stay every year for much beyond the studio level.
Without having access to the data used to make this decision, everyone here is just making a guess.

My theory may not be correct, but most of my heartburn stems from the way this latest change was accomplished. If DVC had sent out a briefing sheet summarizing the occupancy patterns (of which I'm not convinced there is a disparity) and the need to reallocate the points back when they were considering the change instead of a couple days before folks were planning on booking their next Jan vacation, I would be doing way less suspicious of their motives and may be doing less grumbling. I say this from the point of view of someone who usually stays over a long weekend. Even though I just saved 18 points on my most recent reservation, I still don't like the way this was implemented--it stinks to high heaven.

My biggest worry is that this is just another change in a series of changes. We looked at other timeshares and one of the reasons we bought Disney because of the flexibilty in making reservations. I don't see anytime in the next 10 years where it would work out for us to stay 7 nights on a routine basis.

 

[BroganMc]

What DVC Satisfaction Team responded to me:

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.

Anyone get anything different?

Just for the record, I have yet to see any calculation of points that DO NOT show a total allottment change per resort. I sure would like to know DVC's figures for that.

 

[tjkraz]

speaking as a realtor, positive word of mouth is imperative to generate repeat business/referrals; will be interesting to see how this shakes out sales wise

Personal experiences may hurt the little guy (or gal) working with limited resources in a single market. But I doubt it will have much impact on a big company like Disney.

If you look in the right places, you'll find people who hate Apple, people who hate Sony, people who hate WalMart, people who hate Home Depot, and so on. There many who claim to despise Disney for manners in which the theme parks have changed over the years, but the crowds are still coming. That sort of disgruntled fringe element is typically viewed with guarded skepticism.

If I remember correctly, Chuck says there was a pretty irate group back in 1994 following the last reallocation. But DVC survived and flourished.

The value of DVC has certainly changed to new buyers eyeing exclusively weekday stays. But they will make a rational financial decision based upon the numbers available--and many will still choose to buy.

I do not believe the points have been out of balance all this time and DVC has been shirking their legal responsibility. (BTW, for whatever reason, nearly everytime I try to make a reservation for the weekend at less than 7 months, I end up on the W-L).

No we don't have any hard data but anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. The high volume of Sunday arrivals and Friday departures is pretty easy to witness at resorts. Weekends are easy to book under the 25% member discount--a discount only available when DVC projects it will not be able to fill the resort with members using points. Point rentals are almost always Sun - Thurs. And look at the volume of people posting here who are upset about the reallocation vs. those who have said they will be the same or better.

I only have two experiences booking weekends and both were vastly different than booking weekdays. On one occasion I booked a Saturday night in BCV Studio for early-December (Adventure season) on just 3 months notice. Another time I booked a BWV Standard View One Bedroom for Friday on a month's notice. I have also successfully booked the 25% discount on weekends.

The only justification for reallocation is to balance demand--it needs to be a response to demand shifts, not a vehicle for changing member patterns. If you really suspect an ulterior motive, file a complaint with the Florida Timeshare Bureau and ask them to investigate. But I will be very surprised if Disney is unable to defend its actions on something as serious as this.

 

[spiceycat]

A few pages ago Dean made a comment to suggest that DVD (the sales branch which sets prices) and DVC (the management company which would handle the reallocation) do not communicate as much as some may think.

There may be some logic to that. Consider this: Wouldn't it have been to DVD's advantage to acknowledge the reallocation before the BLT minimum went up to 100 points? People who find themselves 10-20 points short now are not going to spend $10k on a 100 point contract. However, a large percentage of them almost certainly would have added a few more points to their small BLT add-on. Others may have bit the bullet and bought another 25 points to get back where they need to be.

Some may think this supposed lack of communications is a crock--and I'm not sure I buy it myself. But I really do think DVC would have sold more points--particularly at BLT--if they had disclosed the reallocation a couple of weeks before the minimum increased.

Demand certainly varies from one season to another (i.e. Christmas week demand is higher than mid-September), but the reallocation suggests that weekday demand has been much higher than weekends across all seasons.

DVC wants to benefit itself at our cost - that is the reason for the 100 points at BLT before annoucing the new points chart./

anything else is just wishfully thinking on some people part.

when DVC did this before - not a big deal just add on 25 points. Can't do this now. it must be 100 or nothing at BLT.

DVC is changing - everything must change or die. but certainly don't like the direction DVC is going.

demand has been out of portion since VWL - so don't give me that it wasn't that they before.

just watch how many DVC members check in on Sunday and check out on Friday. this is NOT a new situation.

DVC is becoming like the other timeshares. they benefit themselves at member costs.

this will continue and get worst as long as Jim Lewis is in charge. really think it will back fire on him. He really thinks that the higher costs that he can charge will interest the rich.

well the rich I know aren't interested in timeshares period. they want to go when they like to where they like and money is not a problem.

 

[tjkraz]

DVC wants to benefit itself at our cost - that is the reason for the 100 points at BLT before annoucing the new points chart./

anything else is just wishfully thinking on some people part.

when DVC did this before - not a big deal just add on 25 points. Can't do this now. it must be 100 or nothing at BLT.

I agree that DVC has a certain interest in selling more points.

However, my argument is that they would have sold MORE if they had the foresight to disclose the reallocation a few weeks earlier. Specifically:

If the reallocation were known a several weeks before the 1/15/09 BLT minimum increase, raise your hand if you would have either:
a) Added a few more points to a small add-on, or
b) Purchased an add-on of 25-99 points to go along with existing holdings.

Now raise your hand if you plan to buy 100+ at BLT in response to the reallocation.

My assumption is the first group (small adders) is much larger than the group who now intends to spend nearly $11,000 each to add 100 points at BLT.

 

[spiceycat]

really, really think that the management though we would buy 100 points.

these people don't seem to understand that the country is not in a good economy setting.

people are worried. they may not have jobs tomorrow. the management at DVC is out of touch with the members and have been since Lewis arrived.

he does not care. Actions speak much, much louder than words. He has shown thru his actions.

don't be surprised if members will start being charged for changing their reservation. anything to get money out of us.

or reservations must be for 3 or 4 days not less. the way he is going it might be a week. He is changing DVC to be like the other timeshares and that is not good for members.

when you aren't looking at reality - you will never acknowledge that you are wrong.

dvc management these days is not looking at reality.

DVC management really, really needs a woman at the head. when women make mistake they admit to them and try to fix it. Men seem to think it will go away if they ignored it.

 

[jecpva]

What DVC Satisfaction Team responded to me:

Originally Posted by DVC
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.
Anyone get anything different?

Just for the record, I have yet to see any calculation of points that DO NOT show a total allottment change per resort. I sure would like to know DVC's figures for that.

I'm all set now, as long as I reserve every room for the entire year, everything will be exactly the same. Anyone want to transfer me some points, I'm a little short.

 

[epcotwanderer]

DVC management really, really needs a woman at the head. when women make mistake they admit to them and try to fix it. Men seem to think it will go away if they ignored it.

I think this is a bit harsh and condescending. I am a woman and I don't think that any of DVC's problems are all because of Jim Lewis nor have anything to do with him being a man.

 

[DisFlan]

The only justification for reallocation is to balance demand--it needs to be a response to demand shifts, not a vehicle for changing member patterns.

Very good point, Tim. But I don't doubt that DVC will be able to defend the decision.

I don't know whether the divisions have good communications or not. It's a moot point as far as this reallocation is concerned. It's a done thing. (But they should learn something from it.) They'll ride out the ill will. The bad feelings will eventually pass. Most buyers a couple of years from now won't know (or care) what took place in the last week. And I have no doubt that there will be buyers. But possibly more in the future than in the short term. This kerfluffle is likely costing them some sales right now - and it's not the best timing for it. I have my doubts that sales quotas were up to expectations before the reallocation announcement, and they probably aren't having a bumper week. But if they can ride out the bad economy, this too shall pass.

DisFlan

 

[Just People]

A first I didn't like the change for 2010. We would go 2x a year with our points. In 2010, that wont be possible...BUT with the reallocation of points we will have enough points to stay for a 7 nights (1 week) in a villa, plus 1 additional weekend night (Saturday-Sunday). That just wouldn't be possible for us this year with our points. So instead of (2) 5 night stays we will be taking just (1) 8-night stay. In the end we will save money because of this. We won't be spending the extra money on Annual Passes, less expenses on meals, souveniers,etc.

This is money that Disney won't be making off me because of their decision.

All in all, we'll benefit from the trip savings per year, so it wont be bad at all.

 

[jecpva]

Someting I don't think I've seen mentioned in this very long thread is the effect this will have on renting points. Basically, S-F have increased across the board as the point rentals are based on around $10/point which will probably lower the demand (or the price). Another (unintentional?) win for Disney as the typical renter will be looking at a price increase (up to 20%) and may use other choices for "on property" stays.