Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[BWV Dreamin]

But - regardless of the other timeshares issues - you get a 2 bedroom for 7 days - usually with no expiration - and on ebay for the $16000 I was going to buy 145 blt points with - I could buy 2 very good marriott or Hyatt weeks. not emotional - very much financial and practical - 14 days of vacationing, as opposed to 2.5 nights per year (that is until the next reallocation). Not emotional at all...

I guess the question then is why didn't you purchase them in the first place?

 

[dzorn]

Ask yourself one question, would most of the people posting saying they are upset, not be upset if DVC had done it that way. I would bet you that every single person who has posted on this thread as being upset isn't mad because of the timing, they're mad because of the change itself.

No Dean I can understand if they need to even out occupancy, but the timing is what is upsetting to me. 2010 the points were available for use for January 2009 reservations started. I have a current trip planned for Feb 2009. I would have done this reservation differently to have enough points for my Feb 2010 trip. IF they would have even announced this 6 months ago I would not now be short for my 2010 trip. Heck if they would have announced this even 1 day before my 30 trip window I cold have cut days off that trip and banked them to have enough for 2010.

Denise in MI

 

[dzorn]

Friendly Reminder


Using *** to block out only part of a word that is in the board word filter, and leaving the word(s) recognizable, is considered a filter violation and subject to 30 infraction points. I realize this reallocation is an issue that negatively impacts a lot of members, but please remember the DIS Posting Guidelines and that these are family friendly boards.

Thanks.

OOPs sorry.

 

[maminnie]

Dean:

I believe many of us would have been much less upset had we been given the opportunity to make educated decisions about our 2009/2010 usage. My vacation plans WOULD HAVE been different for 2009 had I known about the reallocation. I also would not have borrowed into 2010 so that one of my contracts would have been better positioned to be sold. This may have been part of DVC's strategy as well in introducing the reallocation so late.

maminnie

 

[KLR-wlv]

I guess the question then is why didn't you purchase them in the first place?

Because I have been very happy with my DVC purchase until now. But after spending $20000 for a 5 night vacation that is now 4 - it makes me reevaluate the entire thing. I'm glad you enjoy your membership. We've been members since 2001 and have sang praises of dvc until now. Now that we are a family of 5 - I want to spend a nice week with my family -and I can't do that with DVC unless I buy more than 400 points for the year to stay the week I need to travel. - because DVC is a week timeshare now. I think that is the only way to prevent from being affected by further reallocation. So Do I like DVC $32000 more than Hyatt or Marriott? I'm thinking NO right about now.

 

[Dean]

The very reason early December was so popular with members was the lower point costs. Pushing it to a higher season negates that incentive and then you have the effect of fewer members seeing it as time worthy to go. Demand drops and moves to another time of year.

So then what do we get? Another changed point chart, until demand rolls to a different structure and another changed chart. Eventually it becomes the timeshare of the rolling requirements.

Exactly, the purpose of such changes is to change demand. I'm not sure I agree that early Dec is more popular than anticipated simply due to costs but it is a factor. DVC has had 2 reallocations in 16 years, 3 if you count the change in the points formula from OKW to other resorts. Touting it as expecting a reallocation yearly or similar would be a little melodramatic don't you think. As I've said, DVC has the responsibility and requirement to even out usage by reallocation if it gets too far out. My guess is you could expect at most one more reallocation before 2042 but it you see another it's likely to involve changing early Dec, which will also hurt me. DVC could have used the minimum stay option to affect at least part of the problem. Could you imagine the length of this thread now if they had made the change where you could only do 3 days, 4 day or combine the 2 into full week reservations but nothing else. This would be legal under the rules and legal structure.

You know as well as I that timeshares (or sales of any kind) exist on the person-to-person recommendations. That's the PR I'm talking about. How likely do you think people are to recommend DVC over say Marriott with this change? In my case, I know if I recommend someone buy a weekly ownership at Marriott during the summer season, they will be getting that week for the life of the contract. But if I can no longer say that about DVC. Any weekly summer ownership has now just gone up in point price and therefore ownerships purchased before decreased in value. In other words, a week is still a week at Marriott but a week at DVC is now 6 days.

To a degree, but not as much as you think. While DVC is a LITTLE different, most people don't buy a timeshare retail based on recommendations per se from other owners. Resale is a necessary evil from the company's standpoint and doesn't come into play. We'll run this thread and a couple of smaller ones and this will settle down even here. I don't believe for a second that there were hundreds of people here that thought DVC was great before and horrible now and will all of a sudden stop recommending it. They MAY add a few words of caution over some of the recent issues but those are cautions that SHOULD have been in the mix anyway. I've often wondered, and sometimes posted, how the membership would feel about some of the ways other companies do things like Marriott's priority for multiple week owners or Bluegreen and Wyndhams (and others) priority for those who own more points that are developer qualified. My answer to myself is that those that think of DVC as a timeshare that is different and they "wouldn't own a timeshare" would not be able to handle the real world out there.

Look closely at those charts again. I'm finding it hard to see how it all balances out to the same allocation. SSR shows increases that far outweigh any point drops throughout the year.

Without the spreadsheets DVC has and a weekend (or 2 weeks to generate my own), It looks to me like they basically shifted points from GV much of the year to choice studios and a couple of points here and there otherwise looking at full weeks. The rest is just shifting a few points to weekdays from weekends. There really are two different issues at work here. One is rebalancing demand from weekdays to weekend, the other is to allow rebalancing of seasonal demand. This make me wonder why they didn't change early Dec or IF the demand for that time is as great as we think it is, esp given that it was common to get those weeks in II. The one problem they could get in trouble with, using SSR as an example, is if the units sizes are too small and esp if the GV are units unto themselves since the GV went down significantly for the year. IF that were the case they either they are in violation of the legalities OR they committed points Disney owns to make up the difference.

What?! BLT sales have been going for months. The problem is that these charts have been released TOO LATE for any new buyers to adjust. Bookings for Jan 1, 2010 begin Monday. They absolutely had to release these charts now. And they've done so one week AFTER changing the minimum point add-on for BLT from 25 to 100. If they desired to be fair and honest with members, they would have released these charts well before the Jan 15 deadline. They've been sitting on this information because they know it would adversely affect some members and then forced them into spending more for add-ons. It's a cheesy flam-flam operation.

BLT is not sold out, it was released too late for those that have already bought and not in their cancelation period to adjust their plans, my reference was going forward for those that might buy now or in the future. DVD did not force anyone. They made changes where some members made decisions and unfortunately then changed the information shortly thereafter that might have altered those decisions, I get that. No argument the timing stinks but it happened. I am confident DVC made significant efforts to get this done in time and were simply unsuccessful, such is the corporate world. Given I usually come across as the pessimist (I'm really not, realist maybe), it's always funny when I'm in this position. I would suggest that anyone who would have bought a different number of points (esp more), to contact DVD and ask if there is something they can do. I doubt they'll cancel anything outside the legal window but I wouldn't be surprised if they'll work with you on say 60 instead of 50 points.

Dean I know you know alot about timeshares in general but I think you're missing the extent to how this affects individual members. Demand was definitely higher in the periods adjusted but the way it was addressed has significantly devalued ownership for a lot of people. And those are the ones who will hurt DVC's PR the most. Whether it appears in the national media is immaterial. Whether DVC sales in the next quarter veer sharply and we see more resales and less friendshare sales, that's the judge.

Like many other things it affects some members positively and others negatively. And DVD may indeed see a slight downturn due to the changes but likely only from members and a few potential members who frequent places of communications like DIS. To me if this (and all the changes I mentioned above) is enough to make DVC not right for you, then DVC wasn't really right to start with. I'm of the opinion that the threat of PR issues is WAY overrated in such issues. I've seen a lot of threats about it but no real substance whether it's Marriott or DVC which seem to be the two main ones it gets said about. I'm confident DVC is not turing in to Westgate.

 

[BroganMc]

Seems like the emotional posters are running to other timeshares (Marriot, Wyndham, etc) as a way to "do" something to offset the changes in DVC now. I have been slowly learning about the other timeshares, and it seems everyone has some type of risk, disadvantage, trading power issues. Each as a specific strategy that must be used to maximize that particular timeshare. I don't think others should be so quick to jump into these other timeshares. There is ALOT TO LEARN about them. I'm not so sure they are the solution to the unhappiness some are experiencing with DVC right now.

Not much bad about Marriott. The worst thing they've done in the last 10 years has been to raise the number of reward points required to stay in hotels. (Akin to Disney raising the point costs to stay in hotels.) Your resale prices are less, but buy-in and maintenance fees are also a lot cheaper. Availability is generally good, especially last minute in Orlando. And best yet, a week is still a full week.

 

[Kmango]

First of all, CRO doesn't get the rooms to rent unless DVC owners trade out on cruises, exchanges or to other CRO rooms. Making you stay less does not help them in this regard.

Second, shorter stays from members means more room turnover not less. More turnover, more cleaning. That member who stayed 12 days saved Mousekeeping a full cleaning.

Third, I highly doubt there will be enough add-ons to make it a worthwhile move for DVC execs. The sample of members here are showing an overwhelming majority who are obstinately refusing to add-on. DVC execs killed an incentive they had by bungling the news, apologizing and promising a fix then publishing the UNfixed charts anyway, and doing all of it after raising the sale prices and minimum add-ons. This done just days before members have to book 2010.

So while they may be chuckling over their coup, I suspect they'll be crying for a golden parachute 6 months from now when it blows up in their faces.

I don't think for a second this is a ploy to sell more points. Most of the resorts are either sold out or pretty close to it, so it wouldn't even be plausible for even 10% of the members to do a 25pt add-on. There just aren't that many points. And the problem here is not that too few points are sold, but that rooms are going empty on weekends, and that points are being orphaned. When enough points are orphaned, that means that people -- people like you, who paid good money for DVC and pay good money for MFs -- can't get a reservation and can't use their points. (And before you say that doesn't happen, remember that every so often around here we get a thread that darkly insinuates that DVC has oversold the resort because the poster can't get a reservation for when they want. It's not oversold, just out of balance.) Thus, there are actually too many points in the system to support the old point charts. If only, say, 75-80% of the resorts' points were sold, we could muddle on in the current system. But because 98% are sold, occupancy really has to stay up there or things don't work.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Because I have been very happy with my DVC purchase until now. But after spending $20000 for a 5 night vacation that is now 4 - it makes me reevaluate the entire thing. I'm glad you enjoy your membership. We've been members since 2001 and have sang praises of dvc until now. Now that we are a family of 5 - I want to spend a nice week with my family -and I can't do that with DVC unless I buy more than 400 points for the year to stay the week I need to travel. - because DVC is a week timeshare now. I think that is the only way to prevent from being affected by further reallocation. So Do I like DVC $32000 more than Hyatt or Marriott? I'm thinking NO right about now.

I feel your pain. I have been affected as well, although only very slightly, and it looks like I have time to rectify my BLT purchase. But lets put a different slant on this......those that have the money, will simply buy additional points to continue in DVC. Others will need to modify or sell. This may be a maneuver to advance DVC's reputation into a more "elite" status. The "have's" will buy more points, the "have nots" will pass or sell. Just a thought....

 

[supersuperwendy]

 

[Scott]

Exactly, the purpose of such changes is to change demand. I'm not sure I agree that early Dec is more popular than anticipated simply due to costs but it is a factor. DVC has had 2 reallocations in 16 years, 3 if you count the change in the points formula from OKW to other resorts. Touting it as expecting a reallocation yearly or similar would be a little melodramatic don't you think. As I've said, DVC has the responsibility and requirement to even out usage by reallocation if it gets too far out. My guess is you could expect at most one more reallocation before 2042 but it you see another it's likely to involve changing early Dec, which will also hurt me. DVC could have used the minimum stay option to affect at least part of the problem. Could you imagine the length of this thread now if they had made the change where you could only do 3 days, 4 day or combine the 2 into full week reservations but nothing else. This would be legal under the rules and legal structure.

To a degree, but not as much as you think. While DVC is a LITTLE different, most people don't buy a timeshare retail based on recommendations per se from other owners. Resale is a necessary evil from the company's standpoint and doesn't come into play. We'll run this thread and a couple of smaller ones and this will settle down even here. I don't believe for a second that there were hundreds of people here that thought DVC was great before and horrible now and will all of a sudden stop recommending it. They MAY add a few words of caution over some of the recent issues but those are cautions that SHOULD have been in the mix anyway. I've often wondered, and sometimes posted, how the membership would feel about some of the ways other companies do things like Marriott's priority for multiple week owners or Bluegreen and Wyndhams (and others) priority for those who own more points that are developer qualified. My answer to myself is that those that think of DVC as a timeshare that is different and they "wouldn't own a timeshare" would not be able to handle the real world out there.

Without the spreadsheets DVC has and a weekend (or 2 weeks to generate my own), It looks to me like they basically shifted points from GV much of the year to choice studios and a couple of points here and there otherwise looking at full weeks. The rest is just shifting a few points to weekdays from weekends. There really are two different issues at work here. One is rebalancing demand from weekdays to weekend, the other is to allow rebalancing of seasonal demand. This make me wonder why they didn't change early Dec or IF the demand for that time is as great as we think it is, esp given that it was common to get those weeks in II. The one problem they could get in trouble with, using SSR as an example, is if the units sizes are too small and esp if the GV are units unto themselves since the GV went down significantly for the year. IF that were the case they either they are in violation of the legalities OR they committed points Disney owns to make up the difference.

BLT is not sold out, it was released too late for those that have already bought and not in their cancelation period to adjust their plans, my reference was going forward for those that might buy now or in the future. DVD did not force anyone. They made changes where some members made decisions and unfortunately then changed the information shortly thereafter that might have altered those decisions, I get that. No argument the timing stinks but it happened. I am confident DVC made significant efforts to get this done in time and were simply unsuccessful, such is the corporate world. Given I usually come across as the pessimist (I'm really not, realist maybe), it's always funny when I'm in this position. I would suggest that anyone who would have bought a different number of points (esp more), to contact DVD and ask if there is something they can do. I doubt they'll cancel anything outside the legal window but I wouldn't be surprised if they'll work with you on say 60 instead of 50 points.

Like many other things it affects some members positively and others negatively. And DVD may indeed see a slight downturn due to the changes but likely only from members and a few potential members who frequent places of communications like DIS. To me if this (and all the changes I mentioned above) is enough to make DVC not right for you, then DVC wasn't really right to start with. I'm of the opinion that the threat of PR issues is WAY overrated in such issues. I've seen a lot of threats about it but no real substance whether it's Marriott or DVC which seem to be the two main ones it gets said about. I'm confident DVC is not turing in to Westgate.

What bothers me the most is that press release sheds almost no light on the logic and rationale used by DVC in making this change (and most other recent changes). The "to enhance the member experience" or "based on member feedback" is getting a bit tired. Yes, the press release alludes to balancing occupancy, but DVC has had the same system for many years...what has changed that has suddenly hurt DVC in regards to these travel patterns? DVC set the system up to favor weekday stays...why? Why is this suddenly a problem? Guides have promoted this value quite a bit in sales. Their rationale might help us better understand or accept the decision. Shouldn't we expect some sort of thorough explanation on this change and others? Goodness, this is an ownership program not a rewards program. Putting aside the emotions of this change hurting or helping our travel plans, I am most concerned with how and why these changes are made. Who is making them and why?

Include me in the group that is most upset over the manner in which the changes are made, and less about the outcome of the changes. Call me illogical for expecting logic.

Scott

 

[Inkmahm]

Without adequate notice of the point reallocation, DVC did not give their members the courtesy of allowing them to make educated decisions regarding their 2009 and 2010 points. Many have budgeted/allocated points for particular planned vacations during 2009 and 2010, banked, borrowed etc. based on the old charts. For some it may be too late to make necessary adjustments. How many would not have planned a certain trip or length of trip in 2009 if they knew they needed a few more points in 2010? How many would not have borrowed from 2010 if they knew more were going to be needed for their yearly trip to Disney? And of course how many who purchased recently at BLT or AKV would have purchased a few more points???

There is nothing emotional about this rather it is simply a fact and IMHO a very poor decision on DVC's part to release the reallocation at such a late date thereby likely effecting many of its members negatively.

maminnie

Good post. I don't disagree with WHAT Disney did in the reallocation, just in HOW they did it.

 

[kristenrice]

Dean:

I believe many of us would have been much less upset had we been given the opportunity to make educated decisions about our 2009/2010 usage. My vacation plans WOULD HAVE been different for 2009 had I known about the reallocation. I also would not have borrowed into 2010 so that one of my contracts would have been better positioned to be sold. This may have been part of DVC's strategy as well in introducing the reallocation so late.

maminnie

Same here! We had to decide between taking a June 2009 trip or banking the 2009 points. We opted to take the trip and then borrow ALL of our 2011 points for our 2010 trip. Now, with the reallocation, we are 24 points short! Thanks DVC!

I wonder what choice words might come flying out of my mouth while I walk by all those DVC kiosks? I'd love to wear a button that says, "Ask ME about DVC!"

 

[bookwormde]

I do not think most owners would be upset if DVC gave “honest” reasons and facts to support the change (and supplied the data to demonstrate that they were following the “same number of total points rule”), gave at least a years notice and made the changes more gradually plus came up with as many practical ways to mitigate the impact (allowing point add ons at small levels at reduced prices where it can be demonstrated that the now allocations had an impact, allowing members to buy small amount of points (actually a transfers) from DVC to make up the difference, allowing more small transfers between members or even having DVC at least price match CRO on cash reservations etc.

There are reason other than lack of ROFR why most timeshares values have fallen to near zero, while I do not expect this to happen to the full extent, these types of management practices definitely push it in that direction.

bookwormde

 

[Inkmahm]

On the whole, my guess is that the DVC execs are patting themselves on the backs for a big coup. Yes, it sounds all nice and cheery that they balanced out the points and made weekends more affordable, but you have to realize that people ARE going to be vacationing less...which I think is just fine with them. Here's why - You are either going to:
1) fork over more money for an add-on
2) spend less days in their rooms

I think they actually want you to cut down your stays. Why? The less nights you stay, the more inventory they have to sell through CRO. The less moving around you do (to avoid weekend rates), they less they have to spend on mousekeeping.

Some people have mentioned that the points change was a stupid move by the DVC execs since they won't be getting our food and park ticket money. However, what you are forgetting is that the DVC execs could care less about your food and park ticket expenditures. As anyone who read Disney War knows, the various divisions of Disney (parks, DVC, movies, etc.) rarely communicate and all operate to make their own execs look good. So, if you spend less on park tickets, that is another guy's concern - not the DVC execs' concern. All DVC wants to do is sell more DVC and maximize the profits they get from those who have already purchased, and if they feel that changing the point totals can help them in any regard, they are going to do it regardless of what the current members think.

What makes people think there might not be MORE people in the parks spending money on food and tickets due to this change? Some of you that were doing 11 and 12 day trips that will cut back weren't likely in the parks every day anyway. And if you had an AP, there was no additional revenue from tickets for the days you intend to decrease now. Disney gets your AP fee no matter how many days you are in the parks.

If any of the days you won't be staying in a villa are replaced with people who WILL go to the parks and buy tickets/spend money, then Disney comes out ahead.

 

[Dean]

Actually, I found DIS the week after I first saw the presentation and initially I thought your posts were so "hard nosed" BUT then realized there was a reason we didn't ever want a timeshare, and just because this was Disney was no reason to change our mind. Rereading your posts, your advice was solid and not based on the emotion of "owning a bit of the magic". Because of you and several other DIS folks, we didn't take the "bait" when offered additional incentives, but went on our "expensive" WDW vacation at the Poly (when we could have had a "free" DVC vacation on DP). We had a list going back to our guide and she was very patient with us explaining the points and reworking the points we needed. We did finally buy enough points planning for different scenarios, not just one. Thank you for the straight forward answers and time share information you share with us.

Thank you for getting it, I'd rather help you than make you feel warm and fussy. Think of me as your older brother.

Dean - I have enjoyed your insight over the years - but with all due respect - I don't know how we should all just should have expected what we purchased to go to ****. When we have experienced one thing for the 7 or 15 years of owning a product. I guess I should purchase a house, expecting there to be a sinkhole under it, or radon in the basement, or the tree next door to surely fall on it at some point. I suppose that way of viewing all purchases would keep me from any disappointment. DVC has upheld a way of vacationing - which was sold to me - and which I have enjoyed as I understood it initially - for 8 years. WIth this drastic change - yes I believe changing weeknights the full 20% they are allowed under the contract is drastic - just as many would believe the full increase in maintenance fees allowed under law would be. What if that were the situation - what is the MF limit - 15% in one year? What would you say if - for the past 15 years DVC MF's have gone up the normal couple % points - and next year - they jump to the full % under law? I guess that should be expected too - and we should all purchase with the assumption that in 5 years, MF's will be double. I just don't trust this product anymore so I will not invest further thousands of dollars. Is that an emotionall decision? Sure - but it's a financial one for me and DVC as well.

And I don't think it has. I don't think anyone could have anticipated the specifics but every buying in knew or should have know that it could change, it's clearly laid out in the paperwork and there's even a worst case scenario displayed where all points are equal throughout the year.

But - regardless of the other timeshares issues - you get a 2 bedroom for 7 days - usually with no expiration - and on ebay for the $16000 I was going to buy 145 blt points with - I could buy 2 very good marriott or Hyatt weeks. not emotional - very much financial and practical - 14 days of vacationing, as opposed to 2.5 nights per year (that is until the next reallocation). Not emotional at all...

DVC has always been more expensive to buy and own than almost anything else and ultimately for one reason, being on property. Think if WDW were to close down with Sea World and Universal remaining open, what would be the value of DVC compared to say Marriott? Not all timeshares are full week or fixed week, esp other points systems which have the same risks. IMO this is in large party a casualty of the DVC flexibility. I'd quibble with your numbers to a degree as you're not going to get two top Marriott resorts and seasons for that price though the 2 weeks yearly fees would be marginally more than a weeks ownership at DVC but the point that DVC is over priced is and always has been true to a degree, the question is to what degree.


On a side note that I've seen hinted at but not specifically stated THAT I RECALL (long thread though), this may encourage full week stays which could be a good think for members in general and may have been involved in the decision to reallocate.

 

[Inkmahm]

<snip>You get no argument that the timing was somewhat poor, that it should have been out by or before the BLT chart was available, but it simply didn't happen so DVC and the members must go forward. Ask yourself one question, would most of the people posting saying they are upset, not be upset if DVC had done it that way. I would bet you that every single person who has posted on this thread as being upset isn't mad because of the timing, they're mad because of the change itself. The timing just rubs salt in the wound. With the two AKV fiasco's, this, the wait list changes and the reservation lead time changes; one has to ask themselves whether the current (and possibly future) DVC is right for them. The truth is they should have asked that question up front and assumed worst case scenarios. IMO these are minor issues that should not rock the foundation of one's DVC ownership and they are things where such changes and issues should be anticipated. Not that every specific change can be anticipated but that one should expect changes, and screw-ups, and know that most of them will not be favorable to everyone. I think people have held DVC to too high of a standard over the years and that some of these issues are simply bringing them back closer to earth. YMMV.

Agreed.

 

[BroganMc]

Without the spreadsheets DVC has and a weekend (or 2 weeks to generate my own), It looks to me like they basically shifted points from GV much of the year to choice studios and a couple of points here and there otherwise looking at full weeks. The rest is just shifting a few points to weekdays from weekends. There really are two different issues at work here. One is rebalancing demand from weekdays to weekend, the other is to allow rebalancing of seasonal demand. This make me wonder why they didn't change early Dec or IF the demand for that time is as great as we think it is, esp given that it was common to get those weeks in II. The one problem they could get in trouble with, using SSR as an example, is if the units sizes are too small and esp if the GV are units unto themselves since the GV went down significantly for the year. IF that were the case they either they are in violation of the legalities OR they committed points Disney owns to make up the difference.

Not sure how this factors into things but SSR has 36 GVs with 12 person occupancy. They went down overall in a year by 44 points. SSR has 432 studios, 432 1bedrooms, 360 dedicated 2bedrooms and now 60 treehouse villas. The studios went up by 7 points; 1bedrooms increased by 3; dedicated and lockoff 2bedrooms by 9 (dedicateds decreased by 1 point per year); and THVs increased by 3 points per year total allottment. So that means 1584 points decreased at GVs offset by 8460 increased in all other size units. It should be noted those GVs can hold 12 people while the majority of units can hold 4 people (864 units), less 8 (792) and fewer 9 (60).

Doesn't seem like DVC ponied up some of their ownership to defray costs. More likely they used points from smaller units to offset any gains to GVs. I'm still trying to figure out how DVC managed a net gain of 6876 points per year with the point reallocation. (Yes I did only count studios and 1bedrooms once and subjected the net reduction of 1 point per dedicated 2bedroom per year in my calculation.)

Your either more charitable or more sanguine about DVC as a timeshare. Being the highest priced one on the market and a highly niche product, I see it as suffering more to the vagaries of emotional ownership and personal recommendation. People aren't buying DVC to be part of a general vacation timeshare like you'd find with Marriott or the others. They do it specifically to vacation at this one destination. To be part of a so-called family.

If anything I can see them having a tougher time making new sales once the grumbles from existing members grow loud enough to be outright growls. Who wants to pay to be part of a grumpy family?

 

[BWV Dreamin]

DVC has always been more expensive to buy and own than almost anything else and ultimately for one reason, being on property. Think if WDW were to close down with Sea World and Universal remaining open, what would be the value of DVC compared to say Marriott? Not all timeshares are full week or fixed week, esp other points systems which have the same risks. IMO this is in large party a casualty of the DVC flexibility. I'd quibble with your numbers to a degree as you're not going to get two top Marriott resorts and seasons for that price though the 2 weeks yearly fees would be marginally more than a weeks ownership at DVC ......

That was my thought also.....

 

[Kmango]

What makes people think there might not be MORE people in the parks spending money on food and tickets due to this change? Some of you that were doing 11 and 12 day trips that will cut back weren't likely in the parks every day anyway. And if you had an AP, there was no additional revenue from tickets for the days you intend to decrease now. Disney gets your AP fee no matter how many days you are in the parks.

If any of the days you won't be staying in a villa are replaced with people who WILL go to the parks and buy tickets/spend money, then Disney comes out ahead.

Precisely. And if rooms are sitting vacant currently, that's not earning any money. If this gets people to come on weekends, that's more revenue. Also, neither tickets nor (I'm guessing) merchandise revenues track have a linear relationship with the days stayed. Which is to say that you pay a lot for the first day, less for the second, less for the third, and almost nothing for anything past that. So if you drop the fifth day of your stay, that changes the ticket revenue from your family by about $5/person. I suspect that a family staying 4 days spends almost as much on souvenirs as a family staying 5, that you'll just spend slightly more per day.