Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[MiaSRN62]

Yes. I do believe full disclosure happens on every transaction. The disclosure is in the contract we all signed. It is not hidden.

Please go back and read the post I was responding to gonsalj1......we were discussing verbal communication....face-to-face conversations with our guides. Sure it's in the tiny print and I fully believe there are some guides who hope their potential catches miss this at signing. So again, we were referring to verbal. DVC timeshare people are generally better than the lot out there, but I don't think even all of them are 100% upstanding sales people. You interpreted my quote and the one I was responding to incorrectly.

It's time we stop blaming others for our own ignorance.

And once again gonzalj1....I was not doing that. In every single one of my posts, I state I was aware of the right to allocate. BUT.....maybe you're skipping through posts or something ......I said this was a very drastic allocation and that was not clearly conveyed in conversations with my guide. Because I recall the discussions we had while we stayed at VB that year. Took dh and myself 3 days to discuss/read and ask questions before we signed. Never was an allocation of this magnitude hinted at as a possibility. She made it sound like small changes could be made over time. OKW 2 bedrooms jumped 6 points per night in Magic season....and more than that in Premiere. I am coming up 30 points short for a 5 night stay. My guide explained it to be small incremental allocations. This allocation is big enough that I can't even consider borrowing and still being able to stay every year. I consider that quite significant and drastic. So I am blaming noone and I certainly don't feel IGNORANT in this case. If you choose to feel that way about yourself, then that is on you. But please don't speak for me or others who were referring the verbal communication between guides and potential customers.

 

[Scott]

How about a little discussion of the positive aspects of this move?

I think the most immediate result will be a dramatic improvement in availability at all resorts. For years now it has been getting harder and harder to book outside of one's Home resort. Before the booking change, people were calling day-by-day out of fear of being blocked by hundreds of others trying to get the same dates.

This phenomenon has most often been attributed to things like a change in booking patterns by members (calling much earlier than they had previously) or "those SSR owners" booking other resorts at 7 months.

This reallocation sheds new light on the situation. The movement of points suggests that perhaps the biggest change which occurred in recent years was more and more people buying points for weekday use. One of the primary reasons for folks being unable to get reservations is excessive demand for the same Sun - Thurs periods...with a disproportionately small number willing to use their points for weekends.

Come 2010 we should see an immediate positive impact on resort availability--both in that 11-8 month priority window and at 7 months.

We should also see greater success of short notice bookings.

This is the problem with the logic IMO. I don't how this will improve occupancy or how it will spread occupancy from weekdays to weekends. Those who currently travel sunday-thursday will be forced to use more points for their reservations. With fewer points left over, I don't see how a majority of these folks will be in a position to switch from a weekday to a weekend. Thus, most sunday-thursday travelers will still be sunday-thursday travelers. Those who benefit are those booking weekend stays. These people now have enough points left over to add a weekday stay, thus increasing demands for weekday travel.

Having said that, let's assume that the change WILL balance occupancy...what is the motivation for doing so? (This is an attempt to fully understand the re-allocation). Some have suggested that it hurts DVC/Disney financially to have empty rooms. I don't understand how empty rooms hurt DVC or Disney financially. Those rooms are already paid for via the points we purchase. Whether I choose to use my points or let them die, should not affect DVC/Disney financially (putting aside other lost revenue on dining, theme parks, etc. which should not affect DVC decision making).

So this reallocation is simply about balancing occupancy, yes? To make it easier for us to find reservations at our home resorts? I had no idea it is a major problem. Have numerous DVC folks been unable to find a room at their home resorts and on their chosen dates within the 11 month window? Is this more of an issue of finding rooms at other resorts during the 7 month window? If so, could this be more a function of the season rather than the sunday-thursday demand?

Scott

 

[tjkraz]

I disagree. The members who have fewer points will now book 4 days in lieu of 5, or borrow to keep it at 5 days, buy a few extra points to keep it at 5 days, or try to book OKW which requires fewer points. These members aren't suddenly going to use their points on weekends which still (at least currently) require more points.

Even if people do what you describe (borrow / add to maintain duration of reservations) the reallocation will still help. With higher points on the weekdays the system has greater capacity to absorb those points.

There are a finite number of points for sale at each resort. So a member buying more points to maintain their trip duration doesn't necessarily shift demand patterns. The points are simply moving from one owner to another.

Another major influence on these trends will be the attitudes of new buyers. They will only have the 2010 weekday charts to use as the basis for a buy/don't buy decision. The close proximity of weekend to weekday point costs will make trips of longer than 5 nights more palatable to new buyers.

And some current owners will certainly change their patterns. I am already considering it. We have historically kept to the weekdays. But now I envision a scenario where 3 trips of 5 nights each may be combined into 2 trips of 6-7 nights each. We wouldn't necessarily buy more points to do that. It just depends upon how far we can stretch what we have. Overall it will mean fewer days at WDW, but the trade-off is less $$ spent on transportation and less vacation time used over 2 weeks instead of 3.

Whatever shift is going to occur will be a gradual one. From this point forward I think (hope) the charts are reevaluated every 8-10 years. If done properly, future adjustments should be much, much smaller. If DVC had reallocated about 5 years ago, I doubt we would have seen weekday values as extreme as we have today. It would have begun a greater trend toward weekend stays which may have staved-off the need for such an extreme adjustment.

 

[bobbiwoz]

If the guides had to say that a 20% change in point allocation is allowed, would people still think "well, 20% isn't that much." My guess is yes.

I think that what people hear is open to so much interpretation based on expectations, and what they are seeing. They are seeing the chart at the time and I am not sure that given the limit (subject to certain conditions) it would have registered that what has happened would happen.

Bobbi

 

[Scott]

First I'll say that this really IS a difficult thing to explain--unless someone smarter than me can come up with a more simplistic manner. But I'll give it a shot.

The statement I bolded above in your quote is the most significant one of all. The entire purpose of the point chart is to balance supply with demand. DVC isn't doing this out of some selfish need--they are doing it for the benefit of the membership.

The entire idea behind DVC is that the resorts be at 100% occupancy every single day of the year. (Some points are withheld for maintenance, but I'm going to ignore that fact for the purposes of this discussion.)

Really take a moment to think about that 100% occupancy. If you eliminate banking and borrowing, that means the ONLY WAY for every owner to use his/her points is for a resort to be full every night of the year. Every room---every night! All 800+ rooms at SSR would have to be filled 365 days / year. All 400+ rooms at the BoardWalk, and so on.

So whenever there is a room that does NOT contain a guest, it means someone is not using their points. If a single SSR Grand Villa sits empty on a Fri/Sat in Magic season, that is 234 unused DVC points for that single room (under the old/current charts.) If there are 10 empty Savanna View 2Bs on a weekend during Dream season, that's 1400 unused points!

...and so on.

Now there are some reasons why rooms could sit empty. The banking/borrowing rules mean that some of the points may have been banked into the next Use year. But ideally you want those numbers to be close to balancing out. When the total number of points banked and borrowed is similar, again there should be ZERO VACANCIES.

If there is an imbalance in favor of banked points, we have a problem. Let's say that in 2006 there were 2 million points borrowed and 4 million banked. No good. That means 2007 has more points than it can reasonably accommodate. And if the same disparity occurs in 2007, 2008 and so on, we're really headed for trouble.

DVC doesn't disclose any data so it's hard to put real numbers to that. But I'm just circling around to the point that every room should be filled every night of the year.

Another way that rooms could sit empty is if people allow points to expire unused. I'm sure that does happen--but it should cause us to question the "why." Did the points go unused out of apathy? (Some do.) Or was it because the member wasn't able to find a reservation which fit their travel needs? If so, that's another red flag.

People can also trade their points out to DCL, RCI, etc. In those cases rooms are handed-over to CRO. I'm sure that some of the vacancies are CRO rooms. But the rooms available for points bookings should be COMPLETELY booked. No 25% member cash discount. No rooms given to CRO 60 days out under the breakage rules. Zero vacancies. Zilch!

So how do we get to 100% occupancy? We try to balance supply with demand. And that's what the point reallocation does.

Under the old (current) charts, about 60% of the week's points were spread over Sun - Thurs. The other 40% of a weekly point cost was in Fri & Sat. If that is commensurate to demand, members should collectively be using 60% of their points for weekdays and 40% for weekends.

With more and more people buying into DVC as a "bargain vacation", I suspect the scales tilted to the point where something like 75-80% of points were earmarked for weekdays while the weekends were severely under-booked. That sets up a situation where people cannot get the room they want, short notice bookings are impossible, points go unused, members are dissatisfied, etc.

The idea is to find equilibrium. Instead of 60% supply and 80% demand for the weekdays, perhaps things will balance out better at 70% for both supply AND demand. And in DVC terms, the means for increasing supply is to raise the points each night.

Supply and demand...it's all supply and demand. And we members determine the demand...NOT DVC.

Maybe this is even more simplistic: Let's say you own enough points to visit 5 nights per year. The point charts changed and now you can only afford 4 nights per year. That's one night freed-up for someone else who wants to spend points on a weekday. Multiply that one night by the thousands of members similarly effected and what you're doing is creating the capacity to absorb the points that other members have previously been unable to use.

At the same time weekend costs are slashed. Those who visit on the weekends can stretch their points a little further and it will encourage other folks to start visiting on the weekends when they previously would not have done so.

DVC's goal should always be to balance supply with demand to get as close as possible to the 100% year-round occupancy.

I still don't get why 100% occupancy is imperative The points have already been paid for. How does me staying in my villa (or not) affect DVC (not disney) financially? Please don't read any sarcasm here...this is one of the issues I can't get my brain around.
Thanks,
Scott

 

[Muushka]

If the guides had to say that a 20% change in point allocation is allowed, would people still think "well, 20% isn't that much." My guess is yes.

I think that what people hear is open to so much interpretation based on expectations, and what they are seeing. They are seeing the chart at the time and I am not sure that given the limit (subject to certain conditions) it would have registered that what has happened would happen.

Bobbi

You hit the nail on the head. 20% increase is what we are having to pay for our stay.

And what I do not understand is that the point increase for studios at the same time was only 1 point and the 2 BR was the same as the 1 BR, 4 additional points per night. Who the heck thinks up these schedules?
Oh yeah, I am so very happy. And I love my DVC.

 

[tjkraz]

This is the problem with the logic IMO. I don't how this will improve occupancy or how it will spread occupancy from weekdays to weekends. Those who currently travel sunday-thursday will be forced to use more points for their reservations. With fewer points left over, I don't see how a majority of these folks will be in a position to switch from a weekday to a weekend. Thus, most sunday-thursday travelers will still be sunday-thursday travelers. Those who benefit are those booking weekend stays.

As I just said in another post, this isn't going to be an immediate shift. Some members will add weekends to their patterns. New members coming into the program will view weekends as being more attractive. Change is inevitable.

These people now have enough points left over to add a weekday stay, thus increasing demands for weekday travel.

Or they book another weekend...

Having said that, let's assume that the change WILL balance occupancy...what is the motivation for doing so? (This is an attempt to fully understand the re-allocation). Some have suggested that it hurts DVC/Disney financially to have empty rooms. I don't understand how empty rooms hurt DVC or Disney financially. Those rooms are already paid for via the points we purchase. Whether I choose to use my points or let them die, should not affect DVC/Disney financially (putting aside other lost revenue on dining, theme parks, etc. which should not affect DVC decision making).

Well, you're going to get a lot of (IMO) wild conspiracy theories one the "why" part.

The bottom line is that this should NOT be a financial "why". Disney Vacation Club Management Corp exists to manage our timeshare ownership and to do so in the best interest of members. They have a fiduciary responsibility to run a system that treats members fairly and to correct any fundamental flaws within the structure.

As I said elsewhere, I bet you could get a lot of members to vote in favor of 3 points per weekday / 200 points per weeknight. But I hope we can agree that system would not be in our best interests.

It would be naive to ignore the fact that The Walt Disney Company benefits when the resorts are full. Bodies in beds means people spending money on park tickets, dining, t-shirts and so on. But that fact alone does not suggest to me some grand conspiracy is afoot.

If anything, DVC has mis-managed the program over the last few years by NOT reallocating.

So this reallocation is simply about balancing occupancy, yes? To make it easier for us to find reservations at our home resorts? I had no idea it is a major problem. Have numerous DVC folks been unable to find a room at their home resorts and on their chosen dates within the 11 month window? Is this more of an issue of finding rooms at other resorts during the 7 month window? If so, could this be more a function of the season rather than the sunday-thursday demand?

In the grand scheme, yes it is all about balancing occupancy. As I said in the other post you quoted, DVD (and every other timeshare developer in the world) sells enough points/ownership such that the property is at 100% occupancy (less maintenance allocations) year-round. And when rooms go empty, someone is not using their ownership--either willingly or unwillingly. The timeshare manager's duty is to create a system which gives all owners the best opportunity to use their ownership. That means helping to balance demand over certain seasons that are more popular than others and days of the week that are more or less in demand.

There are certainly people who have posted on the DIS about problems using their points. Usually they are shrugged off as "well, you shouldn't have waited so long to book!" Certainly supply and demand will always come into play, but this reallocation is one element of balancing supply and demand.

Overall DIS members tend to be more knowledgable than your run-of-the-mill DVC owner, which suggests that booking experiences outside of this group are probably quite different.

 

[Scott]

As I just said in another post, this isn't going to be an immediate shift. Some members will add weekends to their patterns. New members coming into the program will view weekends as being more attractive. Change is inevitable.



Or they book another weekend...



Well, you're going to get a lot of (IMO) wild conspiracy theories one the "why" part.

The bottom line is that this should NOT be a financial "why". Disney Vacation Club Management Corp exists to manage our timeshare ownership and to do so in the best interest of members. They have a fiduciary responsibility to run a system that treats members fairly and to correct any fundamental flaws within the structure.

As I said elsewhere, I bet you could get a lot of members to vote in favor of 3 points per weekday / 200 points per weeknight. But I hope we can agree that system would not be in our best interests.

It would be naive to ignore the fact that The Walt Disney Company benefits when the resorts are full. Bodies in beds means people spending money on park tickets, dining, t-shirts and so on. But that fact alone does not suggest to me some grand conspiracy is afoot.

If anything, DVC has mis-managed the program over the last few years by NOT reallocating.



In the grand scheme, yes it is all about balancing occupancy. As I said in the other post you quoted, DVD (and every other timeshare developer in the world) sells enough points/ownership such that the property is at 100% occupancy (less maintenance allocations) year-round. And when rooms go empty, someone is not using their ownership--either willingly or unwillingly. The timeshare manager's duty is to create a system which gives all owners the best opportunity to use their ownership. That means helping to balance demand over certain seasons that are more popular than others and days of the week that are more or less in demand.

There are certainly people who have posted on the DIS about problems using their points. Usually they are shrugged off as "well, you shouldn't have waited so long to book!" Certainly supply and demand will always come into play, but this reallocation is one element of balancing supply and demand.

Overall DIS members tend to be more knowledgable than your run-of-the-mill DVC owner, which suggests that booking experiences outside of this group are probably quite different.

I appreciate your explanation...sorry to make you repeat some information. It is hard to wait until the end of the thread before responding to an individual post, especially on this thread.
Scott

 

[Belle & Ariel]

Then we just agree to disagree. We have to both concede that neither of us knows, nor will we ever know, What DVC's intentions were with respect to banking and borrowing when the rule was put in place.

My belief is that is was so members could save during the rainy season and borrow during the sunny season.

I don't believe the system was ever put in place with the expressed intention of affording someone the opportunity to buy 1/3 of a year's points to bank and borrow to use exactly that number of points every 3 years. Sorry. I just don't buy it. Can it be used that way? Certainly. But when it doesn't work anymore, I think it's safe to say that wasn't what DVC designed it into the system for but that's just my opinion.

Not everyone goes to Disney every year. Some people buy half what they need to stay every other year. This should have no effect on your reservation. You can do what works for you and respect people who use DVC differently.

 

[KLR-wlv]

This is the problem with the logic IMO. I don't how this will improve occupancy or how it will spread occupancy from weekdays to weekends. Those who currently travel sunday-thursday will be forced to use more points for their reservations. With fewer points left over, I don't see how a majority of these folks will be in a position to switch from a weekday to a weekend. Thus, most sunday-thursday travelers will still be sunday-thursday travelers. Those who benefit are those booking weekend stays. These people now have enough points left over to add a weekday stay, thus increasing demands for weekday travel.

Having said that, let's assume that the change WILL balance occupancy...what is the motivation for doing so? (This is an attempt to fully understand the re-allocation). Some have suggested that it hurts DVC/Disney financially to have empty rooms. I don't understand how empty rooms hurt DVC or Disney financially. Those rooms are already paid for via the points we purchase. Whether I choose to use my points or let them die, should not affect DVC/Disney financially (putting aside other lost revenue on dining, theme parks, etc. which should not affect DVC decision making).

So this reallocation is simply about balancing occupancy, yes? To make it easier for us to find reservations at our home resorts? I had no idea it is a major problem. Have numerous DVC folks been unable to find a room at their home resorts and on their chosen dates within the 11 month window? Is this more of an issue of finding rooms at other resorts during the 7 month window? If so, could this be more a function of the season rather than the sunday-thursday demand?

Scott

I'm with you - don't understand how empty rooms that have been paid for with points and maint fees are costing disney - esp since they get to rent them. And I have never in 8 years had difficulty getting a reservation.

Does disney think with the economy and gas prices likely to rise again that the longterm health of sales is to appeal to people within a few hours' drive? So entice them with cheaper weekends? I still can't get over the GCV point chart - 75 points for a 2br in premier season weekday- a full 20 points more than WL...that's 375 points for sun-thursday! and $1500 in maint. fees alone. Wonder what Hawaii's gonna be?!

 

[gonzalj1]

Please go back and read the post I was responding to gonsalj1......we were discussing verbal communication....face-to-face conversations with our guides.

As others have pointed out, and I will again, verbal communications are irrelevant. Only what is in writing matters.

Never was an allocation of this magnitude hinted at as a possibility. QUOTE]

Again, verbal communications, to which you seem to be refferring, are irrelevant. Since the contract, to my knowledge, places no limit on the potential reallocations one can not assume what they may consist of.

I stand behind my statements. If the new point allocations are not to your liking it is your right to sell. Likewise, if the potential of further point reallocations is not to your liking you can, and should, sell.

It is also your right to speak your mind, as you are doing on this board. Likewise, it is my right to disagree with those who insist on portraying Disney's actions as wrong, greedy, illegal or who just spread misinformation.

 

[Chuck S]

I'm with you - don't understand how empty rooms that have been paid for with points and maint fees are costing disney - esp since they get to rent them. And I have never in 8 years had difficulty getting a reservation.

Does disney think with the economy and gas prices likely to rise again that the longterm health of sales is to appeal to people within a few hours' drive? So entice them with cheaper weekends? I still can't get over the GCV point chart - 75 points for a 2br in premier season weekday- a full 20 points more than WL...that's 375 points for sun-thursday! and $1500 in maint. fees alone. Wonder what Hawaii's gonna be?!

An imbalance of occupancy/demand costs members, not Disney.

They have to maintain a basic number of housekeepers, maintenance staff, etc. at the resorts,even in low occupancy. They have to increase that staff on the high demand days, like Friday and Sundays. More units than average to be cleaned means more housekeeping staff on those days, or overtime.

Improving demand by evening out even some of the Friday check-outs and Sunday check-ins can reduce operating costs by reducing the need for part-time staff or overtime pay. It can also lead to members getting into their rooms in a more timely manner, and less likelihood of encountering a room that was not well cleaned because of the rush to get them done by 4pm.

Labor is one of the higher costs for business, and in todays economy, it will be the first cost they look at controlling, as evidenced by the nationwide layoffs.

 

[pilferk]

I feel for those that this effects strongly. It sucks to have your "routine" messed with and it's worse if you now will have to somehow either aquire more points or "bank and borrow" to take your traditional vacations (eventually leaving you "short").

For us...it's not much of an issue. We travel Saturday - Friday (so 1 weekend night, and 5 weekday nights)...or, rather, we stay DVC those days, during Adventure Season (which happens to coincide with my "slow" season at work, too). AKV, savanna view. In a 1 BR, it would mean 8 more points for that time period. I can deal with that. In a 2 BR, it would mean ONE more point for that time period. That's not a big deal, to us, either. Luckily, it doesn't mean we're "short" and need to buy that ONE more point to make things equal out.

I can certainly see why people are upset, though. Even though everyone knew it was possible, even if it might be in the best interests of the program as a whole (assuming it is...who knows), it stinks to have the proverbial rug yanked out from under you.

 

[kimberh]

I was wondering if there was a survey that new prospects fill out when they attend a DVC presentation. If so, I would bet weekend points come up. With Airfare being cheaper with a Saturday night stay, I would be willing to bet that the cost of weekend points comes up to the Guides or on a survey. I know that I have people mention this to me. How many Threads have been on the Dis about how to spend the weekends? DVC members that are not familiar with Internet Boards may not know how to spend the weekends to make the points stretch. This could be a huge complaint to Guides, which has been passed on to management.

I know, 2 years ago... I had a Boardwalk View, One Bedroom booked for Sun-Thur night stay. I needed Fri night... I called MS it was about $ 330.00 for a Studio. Since I was going to have to change rooms, (I could not book Boardwalk view with cash...The points were just to high) I booked 2 nights at a Universal Property for the same money. I know I am just one of many that did this (stretched points). How many Threads have been posted about people trying to save weekend points? If I were Disney Management, I would have been discussing how to get more people to stay on property then lose them to Universal or Seaworld... or have them return home.

As I posted earlier, I am not for the lack of communication, but I have never thought that the high weekend points were fair. I hate that the studios are so high now. The one bedrooms, wow. I mean, I feel all the pain of those it is really affecting.

 

[Chuck S]

I was wondering if there was a survey that new prospects fill out when they attend a DVC presentation. If so, I would bet weekend points come up. With Airfare being cheaper with a Saturday night stay, I would be willing to bet that the cost of weekend points comes up to the Guides or on a survey. I know that I have people mention this to me. How many Threads have been on the Dis about how to spend the weekends? DVC members that are not familiar with Internet Boards may not know how to spend the weekends to make the points stretch. This could be a huge complaint to Guides, which has been passed on to management.

I know, 2 years ago... I had a Boardwalk View, One Bedroom booked for Sun-Thur night stay. I needed Fri night... I called MS it was about $ 330.00 for a Studio. Since I was going to have to change rooms, (I could not book Boardwalk view with cash...The points were just to high) I booked 2 nights at a Universal Property for the same money. I know I am just one of many that did this (stretched points). How many Threads have been posted about people trying to save weekend points? If I were Disney Management, I would have been discussing how to get more people to stay on property then lose them to Universal or Seaworld... or have them return home.

As I posted earlier, I am not for the lack of communication, but I have never thought that the high weekend points were fair. I hate that the studios are so high now. The one bedrooms, wow. I mean, I feel all the pain of those it is really affecting.

And you know, we see one or two threads a month from new members here, wondering why weekends are high points, and complaining. And this is only from the new DVC members that find their way to the DIS. I think you are correct, guides hear this a great deal more than we do here on the boards. Many new members may also have written letters or complained to MS while booking. If marketing hears this, and MS sees a rise in Sun-Thur booking or hears complaints about airfares, there is certainly a basis for the re-allocation, if demand justifies it.

 

[ashbradnmom]

I still don't get why 100% occupancy is imperative The points have already been paid for. How does me staying in my villa (or not) affect DVC (not disney) financially? Please don't read any sarcasm here...this is one of the issues I can't get my brain around.
Thanks,
Scott

I do beleive that the reason for the close to 100% occupancy is that they think that if you are there you will spend money at the parks, restaurants etc. I look at it that yes DCV/DVD already has your money but all the same it it is still tied to disney and they need to keep people in the parks. If a room sits empty they can look at it and say we lost x amount of dollars by x amount of poeple that could have been in that room.

 

[Scott]

And you know, we see one or two threads a month from new members here, wondering why weekends are high points, and complaining. And this is only from the new DVC members that find their way to the DIS. I think you are correct, guides hear this a great deal more than we do here on the boards. Many new members may also have written letters or complained to MS while booking. If marketing hears this, and MS sees a rise in Sun-Thur booking or hears complaints about airfares, there is certainly a basis for the re-allocation, if demand justifies it.

Perhaps this is the crux of the problem. This goes beyond the "this hurts me I hate it" or "this helps me I love it" exchange. Chuck (or anyone else), is there a systematic process for gathering and evaluating member feedback related to this mystical "member experience" DVC alludes to in each press release? I would hate to think the DVC is making major decisions based on the "squeaky wheel" phenomenon, or some other "bright idea" from someone in a staff meeting. I have not been a DVC member long enough to understand the feedback/change process, but I've been on the DIS boards long enough to realize that part of the problem is that folks feel blind-sided and don't see the rationale or motivation for the changes. That is, the lack of transparency in the decision making. Even those who do see the rationale, are only making inferences and assumptions as to the reasons for the changes. I get the sense that some here (even those who like the changes) have lost confidence in the decision making ability of DVC.
Scott

 

[White_Sox_Fan]

I do beleive that the reason for the close to 100% occupancy is that they think that if you are there you will spend money at the parks, restaurants etc. I look at it that yes DCV/DVD already has your money but all the same it it is still tied to disney and they need to keep people in the parks. If a room sits empty they can look at it and say we lost x amount of dollars by x amount of poeple that could have been in that room.

If they maintain close to 100% occupancy that means all the members are getting the opportunity to use all their points. Since they sell up to 98% of the points anything that averages less than 98% means that there are members whose points are not being used. It is best for the members if DVC can maintain as close to full occupancy as possible since that means everyone is getting the full benefit of their purchase.

 

[Scott]

I do beleive that the reason for the close to 100% occupancy is that they think that if you are there you will spend money at the parks, restaurants etc. I look at it that yes DCV/DVD already has your money but all the same it it is still tied to disney and they need to keep people in the parks. If a room sits empty they can look at it and say we lost x amount of dollars by x amount of poeple that could have been in that room.

I agree with you, but I have also heard on these boards that DVC/Disney doesn't care if we take fewer trips or fail to use our points because they already have our money. That is, they don't need to provide additional perks and promotions to DVC people because we have already paid for our trip.

 

[keishashadow]

I haven't even gotten a standard reply...well, just the initial one that says "Thank you!, we'll get to your concerns withing 3 business days."
Bobbi

be sure to let us know, please