Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[LIFERBABE]

I believe there is a clause in the contract that says banking and borrowing can be suspended to keep the system in balance.

There is a clause that allows it, you are correct. Yes it could get real ugly, fast with all they can do.

Always knew they had a bag of hammers, just didnt think they would break them out all at once. That was until they took the mugs away and extended OKW. Then I knew they were not concerned about current members, only getting new ones to replace us.

 

[jdg345]

Before I get into the whys, I still need to establish the whats. Like I've said before my point math doesn't seem to support a balanced chart. But then I may be wrong and need to get an explanation from management about how they calculated.

I just didn't expect to see weekly rates changed, or if changed then swapped in other seasons. The Choice increase for studios has me the most flummoxed. (An increase of 8 points per week.)

But it looks like VWL owners have just as big a beef. For them it's the 1bedrooms that fluctuated wildly in Adventure and Choice. (An increase of 6 points per week.)

Most other resorts saw changes of only 1-3 points.

There is another way to look at this. Perhaps DVC has given up more of its point ownership at SSR with the new THV sales and that's where these extra points are coming from. Yet more owners competing for rooms with less developer points available for incentives. Maybe on the bright side we'll see fewer Free Dining Plan upgrades to studios and 1bedrooms.

No matter what I grumble, I still love SSR best. This just means I'll be shaving a weekday off my May stays to better afford October.

But if they increased Choice by 8, didn't they also have to decrease another season by the same? Or multiple seasons?

It seems like they're trying to lessen the disparity between seasons and weekends/weekdays. What's funny is that these disparities existed to keep the resorts at occupancy. Deter locals from staying during the weekends and get people to stay during the week to keep traffic in the parks.

Perhaps with this economy, they're trying to entice locals back in?

 

[disneymayz]

There is a lot of post here and I did not read all but my thoughts on it are.....

For them to add points they have to take some away. The total points "SHOULD" stay the same for the year.

It will help some and it will hurt some. It is like they are balancing the point to make it fair for all.

 

[Scott]

Right now demand is such that people are on the phone at 9am exactly 11 months out in order to (virtually) guarantee a room for early-December. Switching resorts at 7 months is practically impossible because ALL of the resorts are often booked-up before the 7-month window arrives.

Raising the costs a few points per night is NOT going to lead to vacancies. It means that the rooms may fill up slower, or that members will have to use a greater share of their ownership in order to visit during that period.

The purpose of the charts is to balance demand...pure and simple. The periods which folks generally consider to be undesirable should be priced the lowest to encourage visits. September is a prime example. September deserves to be in the lowest season. Schools are just returning to session...hurricane season...nasty weather. We NEED the low points in September to encourage folks to use their points for those dates.

Early-December is the polar opposite. You could easily argue for moving those dates all the way up to Dream season--if not Magic season. I don't have access to DVC's reservation information but it sure seems like there is greater demand for early-December reservations than there is for the middle of the summer (June, July, August) which are in Magic season.

Raising the points would immediately impact demand so I don't think it would actually be proper to move early-December to Magic season. But I think a 1 or 2 category increase is more than warranted.

Perhaps it makes financial sense for DVC to change the point structure during peak periods (e.g., christmas, F & W) to make it virtually unaffordable for DVC members to use their points, or at least limit these seasons to those of us who don't like to rub elbows with the low point peasants . Worst case scenario would be vacant villas during peak seasons which is not a worst case scenario at all for Disney. I would imagine that these vacancies will be easy and lucrative to fill via central reservations.

Also, just curious about the season designations. Are these subject to change? That is, would it be possible for DVC to create an ultra-dream season?

Scott

 

[MiaSRN62]

believe Maria bought OKW at 150 points when that was the minimum--and it worked out that those points satisfied her family's vacations needs for Sun-Thurs. Now with the point increase that is not the case. So, she bought the recommended DVC minimum, but is now in a dilemma. So I don't think you can tie it to buying the DVC minimum. But I also think Maria got a lot of years using her membership to the max (whereas someone who also bought 150 points, but had to travel on weekends, didn't get as much usage). I understand the frustration of someone in Maria's position that they are no longer getting the usage they did before--but the person who previously went only three days, because their trip included a weekend, may now be able to go four days.

True toocherie.....
We did buy in Aug 2000 when it was just BWV or OKW (as far as WDW DVC's) at 150 min. And yes....I was able to maximize my 150 points. Never had to bank or borrow. 5 nights in a 2 bedroom every year. But, I'm getting 9 years out of a 42 year contract. So really, I haven't been able to use it all that much when you look at the life of the loan ? And it's great someone else gets to get an extra day ----but I still say they had the advantage. They knew they were going to be staying over weekends and mostly likely accomodated for that. So they're possibly getting an EXTRA added bonus of another day for MANY more years than I was ever able to maximize my points. The Sun-Thurs person feels a distinct loss or taking away of something----a devalue of their Membership. Dh and I are SO pleased we did not do the OKW extension........WHEW !

 

[tjkraz]

It seems like they're trying to lessen the disparity between seasons and weekends/weekdays. What's funny is that these disparities existed to keep the resorts at occupancy. Deter locals from staying during the weekends and get people to stay during the week to keep traffic in the parks.

Perhaps with this economy, they're trying to entice locals back in?

It's one thing to have a disparity--but quite another when that disparity is essentially a hard barrrier to entry. Looking at the 2009 values, I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind buying DVC points for use as a weekend getaway. Locals can do much better via AP rates and other FL resident discounts.

Over the last dozen years people began buying DVC in greater numbers for exclusive use on the weekdays. And the points available on the charts for those weekday stays can no longer absorb the number of points people have available.

The weekends ARE STILL higher. But the reduction should be sufficient to encourage some existing members to change their vacation habits. Meanwhile DVC will also attract a different demographic of buyer. They may well be losing the deep bargain hunters as customers (since weekdays went up), but others may emerge to fill the gap.

Was the shift in points too dramatic? Will weekends now fill-up at the expense of weekdays? We'll certainly find out. I'd say the only certainty is that this won't be the last reallocation in DVC points.

 

[Scott]

The system was never designed to work for anyone that buys in at less than the minimum purchase level required by DVC (currently 160?). That's why they have a minimum buy-in requirement.

People shouldn't get mad when they can't work the system anymore when they didn't buy in at the recommended minimum levels. That's all I've ever said.

They have a minimum buy-in to increase profits...period. Why on earth would they let someone add-on 25 points if it wasn't to bank and borrow? This method is promoted extensively by DVC is sales promotions? Though I am not one of those small contract manipulators you speak of, I am offended by your tone and accusations nonetheless...well, ok, maybe offended is too strong of a word. Let's just say that I found it baseless and denigrating. \
Scott

 

[tjkraz]

Perhaps it makes financial sense for DVC to change the point structure...

DVC cannot make these changes based upon what is to their financial advantage. They are required by Florida law to base reallocations on historical booking trends.

Given the outcry this is likely to generate, it is entirely possible that Disney will be asked to demonstrate the rationale behind the point changes. And I have every expectation they will be able to do that.

Also, just curious about the season designations. Are these subject to change? That is, would it be possible for DVC to create an ultra-dream season?

Yes, the seasons can change.

The POS even goes so far as to illustrate how seasons could be eliminated completely and a single point value charged for every night of the year.

 

[Scott]

DVC cannot make these changes based upon what is to their financial advantage. They are required by Florida law to base reallocations on historical booking trends.

Given the outcry this is likely to generate, it is entirely possible that Disney will be asked to demonstrate the rationale behind the point changes. And I have every expectation they will be able to do that.



Yes, the seasons can change.

The POS even goes so far as to illustrate how seasons could be eliminated completely and a single point value charged for every night of the year.

Thank you! I would be thrilled to see the rationale.

 

[tjkraz]

They have a minimum buy-in to increase profits...period. Why on earth would they let someone add-on 25 points if it wasn't to bank and borrow? This method is promoted extensively by DVC is sales promotions? Though I am not one of those small contract manipulators you speak of, I am offended by your tone and accusations nonetheless...well, ok, maybe offended is too strong of a word. Let's just say that I found it baseless and denigrating. \
Scott

There are a lot of baseless comments flying back and forth at this point.

Among the reasons for low add-on thresholds:

* Growing family - need to start booking larger rooms
* Need to vacation during more expensive seasons
* Desire to extend vacation duration (say, from 5 nights to 6 nights.)
* Increase frequency of vacations
* Stay in more expensive room class (Standard to Savanna view; Standard to BoardWalk View)

I think it's reasonable to conclude that small add-ons have contributed to the need for a reallocation. Whether things have gong counter to how DVC intended is certainly open to debate.

But the reality is we have (had) more people using points for weekday stays than the point charts would support. Reallocation was the only fix.

(Actually it wasn't the ONLY fix. A minimum stay would have also had some impact but I think people would have liked that change even less.)

 

[Scott]

There are a lot of baseless comments flying back and forth at this point.

Among the reasons for low add-on thresholds:

* Growing family - need to start booking larger rooms
* Need to vacation during more expensive seasons
* Desire to extend vacation duration (say, from 5 nights to 6 nights.)
* Increase frequency of vacations
* Stay in more expensive room class (Standard to Savanna view; Standard to BoardWalk View)

I think it's reasonable to conclude that small add-ons have contributed to the need for a reallocation. Whether things have gong counter to how DVC intended is certainly open to debate.

But the reality is we have (had) more people using points for weekday stays than the point charts would support. Reallocation was the only fix.

(Actually it wasn't the ONLY fix. A minimum stay would have also had some impact but I think people would have liked that change even less.)

Your reasons for the low-add on apply to add-ons at your current home resort. Since they allow me to add 25 points at another resort, wouldn't that implicitly promote the B & B method?

 

[tjkraz]

Thank you! I would be thrilled to see the rationale.

I doubt you or I would ever see justification for the changes. But if there are sufficient complaints to the Florida Bureau of Timeshares, Attorney General, etc. they will investigate.

The one thing that seems a little shady right now is the BLT reallocation since it has no booking history to use as the basis for a point chart change. I do think Disney is making a good-faith effort on the BLT reallocation since trends are likely to mirror other resorts--but it's questionable as to whether they followed the letter of the law.

As for the other resorts, I would be quite surprised if Disney is found to have erred in their recalculations.

 

[DVC92]

The administration of DVC should have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the members. DVD and DVC are separate entities for legal reasons. Unfortunately, I believe both organizations are headed by Mr. Lewis, which creates a conflict of interest. I believe this conflict always falls on the side of DVD to increase revenue. Therefore, IMHO, the reallocation was done to promote the additional sale of add-on points and/or require new buyers to purchase more points for shorter stays. Was there an imbalance on weekends? I'm sure there was, but does that really matter to DVC? I don't believe DVC actually cares if members can't make reservations after the points are purchased. Further, weekend nights are probably easier to rent.

 

[Chuck S]

Your reasons for the low-add on apply to add-ons at your current home resort. Since they allow me to add 25 points at another resort, wouldn't that implicitly promote the B & B method?

Not necessarily, as non-home points can be used in conjunction with your home use points at the 7 months window for extending the vacation. There are other reasons to purchase non-home points. For instance, someone may want to add points at a resort with lower maintenance fees, feeling if they can find availability at their home resort at 7 months, great, if not, then they will stay at OKW.

 

[MiaSRN62]

Was the shift in points too dramatic? Will weekends now fill-up at the expense of weekdays? We'll certainly find out. I'd say the only certainty is that this won't be the last reallocation in DVC points.

This is where I wish I had that crystal ball Tim
For us, this allocation will actually deter us even more from staying weekends because we're already in a big deficit with just weekday points and will be in a continum circle of borrowing. So the 4-5 times I have stayed over a weekend in the past 8 years, that will as of this year become zero. Well...I actually have VWL booked over a full weekend in May and don't want to cancel and adjust at this point. But that's going to be the last weekend for us for sure.

But I'm sure there are many that will take advantage of it. Will the people like me, who totally shy away from weekends now, cancel out the amount that does decide to stay with the lower points ? I mean, if what you said in the below quote is correct (and I'm not doubting it), then there are lots like me out there who not only definitely cannot stay over weekends now, but are having to actually drop vacation weekdays.

tjkraz :Over the last dozen years people began buying DVC in greater numbers for exclusive use on the weekdays.

Maria

 

[Kmango]

The administration of DVC should have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the members. DVD and DVC are separate entities for legal reasons. Unfortunately, I believe both organizations are headed by Mr. Lewis, which creates a conflict of interest. I believe this conflict always falls on the side of DVD to increase revenue. Therefore, IMHO, the reallocation was done to promote the additional sale of add-on points and/or require new buyers to purchase more points for shorter stays. Was there an imbalance on weekends? I'm sure there was, but does that really matter to DVC? I don't believe DVC actually cares if members can't make reservations after the points are purchased. Further, weekend nights are probably easier to rent.

As it has been said several times, Disney is clearly not doing this to sell more points, as 1) the only add-ons that would really be helpful would be at the same resort you currently own and 2) with the exception on AKV and BLT (and as of this week SSR), those resorts are currently sold out.

 

[KLR-wlv]

I too would love to see rationale - if it's all based on demand - then Vero Beach must have been one of the highest demand since the weekday points ALL went up close to 20% - every room category - every season. That has not been my booking experience with Vero...

 

[MELSMICE]

Personally I was never comfortable with splitting my points between multiple resorts because I wanted enough at one resort to get 2 or 3 stays a year there with the 11-month booking window. If we could switch at the 7-month mark great, if not I knew I had a reservation somewhere we loved. We started with 200 at AKV and last year did two 100 pt add-ons so we now have 400 pts at one resort. This gives us the flexibility of planning multiple yearly trips without having to worry about seasons or weekend points so much.

Having all my current points at our home resort is what makes me comfortable within the system DVC has put in place, it doesn't mean its the only way to utilize the system they deemed would govern our stays.

I was never comfortable with the idea of buying smaller contracts just so I could stay somewhere a night or two (and have to move during a stay) or that I would have to bank/borrow just to get a stay there every three years. However, that's just my personal feeling and how I was most at ease with how we would use the system that's in place. Obviously there are many others that are perfectly fine with owning multiple resorts or smaller contracts that require banking/borrowing and that is how they want to use the system that's in place. Neither approach is wrong.

I think DVC understimated the ingenuity of owners and the "inside" knowledge that's available to owners and newbies alike via places like these boards. They probably never intended their system to be used in the creative ways it has been so they used whatever avenue they had available to try to correct the disparity. Hence, the recent drastic changes to the point charts.

I'm sure the US never intended for its tax code to grow to thousands of pages either, but when taxpayers find clever ways to legally "use" the system, regardless of what the system's original intentions were, they have to make adjustments. That's how I see this, a simple adjustment to try to reign in use of the system that may have been headed in a direction DVC was uncomfortable with. It hurts some, it benefits others. It doesn't mean they are punishing us for using the system in ways they couldn't imagine when they orginally created it. If anything, it means DVC underestimated how quickly it would grow and the ingenuity of its members.

Same here. All our points are OKW. We have done 4 add ons (I believe) & did them at OKW.

It is much easier for us. If we want to stay somewhere else we try for the 7-month window. If it works, great. If not, we'll try again another time.

 

[Chuck S]

I too would love to see rationale - if it's all based on demand - then Vero Beach must have been one of the highest demand since the weekday points ALL went up close to 20% - every room category - every season. That has not been my booking experience with Vero...

All they'd need to demonstrate is that there was "higher" demand for weekdays over weekends, not that weekdays were fully booked.

In other words, they only need to show that a higher percentage of point reservations were made for a Sunday than for a Friday. And we've certainly seen evidence of that, as many people check-out Friday and back-in on Sunday. And many posters on this thread, apparently, are Sunday to Thursday only guests.

Again, demand and occupancy are two different things.

 

[jdg345]

It's probably due to the 20% cap on increases. I don't think they could have both raised the weekday rates AND moved Dec 1-14 to a higher season while staying under the 20% increase limit.

I agree that change is probably next. Could be 2011...2 years...5 years...but demand for early-December clearly dictates that it is priced too low.

I don't know ... the reason the points are so low during this period is to get the DVC folks in to keep the parks active during this period where just about all the other resorts are ghost towns. They may look to tweak a bit here, trying to achieve some 'point burn', but if they tweak too much, they're defeating the reason for having the season to begin with.