Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[tamclan]

Lugnut33 - Thanks for the suggestion. Not sure how close St. Pete's beach is though, with 2 young children, this might not be feasible. We will start at WDW, go to Sea World and then end back at WDW, so not sure if St. Pete's can fit in between that? I'll talk to hubby.

I'm not good with numbers (I'm an English teacher - LOL!), so please bear with me:

If I may ask, what number of days (on average) is benefitting most from the change? Eg. We like to stay 11 or 12 nights, Sunday 1 week until Thurs or Fri. of following week, and so we definitely are not benefitting from change. So, is it people who are staying 7 or 8 nights? My hubby did quick calculations and said around 8 days, but based on above-mentioned scenarios, I think these people might be ok? Of course, I know it depends upon season and room type too. We are July people in a 1 bed, if that helps.

Tiger

In general the posters who indicate their travels have a higher weekend percentage have indicated points requirment have gone down.

So if your 6 days and less but go 2 weekend nights your better off.

7 days is close to break even.

If you go 8 (or more up to 12) and have 3 or 4 weekend days your better off, otherwise same number of nights will cost more points.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

I don't see how anyone could think this DVC would use this as justification for selling a handful of small, one-time add-ons to existing members. It just doesn't add up.

I am very quick to suspect ulterior motives in Disney. But when it comes to the point-reallocation, I agree with you 100%. The reallocation wasn't done to sell a few add-ons. Demand was seriously out-of-whack and getting worse. DVC could not continue with the current point chart. Yes, they could have handled it better - much better. But at some point they had to do this.

If they had marketed it as a separate contract, regional timeshare sales laws would have blocked a portion of OKW owners from taking advantage. For example, DVC can only sell points in one Canadian province (Ottawa, perhaps?) If the 15-year extension had been sold as a separate contract, owners in other Canadian provinces, some foreign countries and even some US states would not have been able to take advantage. Or they would have had to make their way to Florida or California to do it in person.

And here's where I return back to my paranoid ways. Talk about passing the sniff test... they didn't structure the deal is a member-unfriendly-way to avoid "burdening" a few Canadian owners from having to travel to Florida or California. Considering that these folks OWN A TIMESHARE IN FLORIDA, it doesn't seem like that much of burden.

So DVC ultimately went with the option that let them contact everyone--even though it required some ugly contract language and formal opt-outs from those who weren't interested.

Follow the money - always fallow the money. This isn't about ugly contract language or opt-out burdens. It's about maintenance fees.

 

[tjkraz]

Follow the money - always fallow the money. This isn't about ugly contract language or opt-out burdens. It's about maintenance fees.

I agree the method they chose was motivated by getting the most extenders possible. But I do believe, at the time, they thought the approach was a reasonable trade-off for the "pro" of being able to offer to everyone. There would have been a vocal contingent of disappointed members if the extension were not immediately accessible to everyone.

What they really didn't foresee was that members would find the opt-out process to be so cumbersome or viewed as such a negative.

 

[Chuck S]

Follow the money - always fallow the money. This isn't about ugly contract language or opt-out burdens. It's about maintenance fees.

Except, that if they were unable to market it as an extension in their location, they would also be unable to even contact them to give them "official" notification that the ground lease HAD been extended and separate extension contracts would be available at WDW. It would be considered "marketing."

Let alone owners in overseas countries that do not allow DVC presentations.

Honestly, for most owners, signing over the deed to Disney (and we had 4 deeds) took about 20 minutes at your local bank. UK members, however, were truly inconvenienced timewise and financialy, as notaries are very expensive there (think a few hundred $$), and often require an appointment.

Overall, while legally it was a strange way to extend, or decline the extension, it worked out pretty well for the vast majority of owners. I would have extended, if I thought I would be live long enough/be healthy enough to enjoy it. I may be, and if so, I can extend at that time, as I will turn 84 in 2042...we'll see.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I don't see how anyone could think this DVC would use this as justification for selling a handful of small, one-time add-ons to existing members. It just doesn't add up.



Seriously? Aren't people worked-up enough without pouring a little gasoline on the fire?

.

Yes Tim, always carry a little octane with me! Hey, any way you slice it, the outcome is the same. Owners will eventually add on more points to continue their vacation habits...lets do a poll. How many were NOT affected? I would venture to say, more than 50%. Are 50% of those affected going to sell? No way....will they adjust vacation habits, initally yes. After that, I bet no. Thus, ad-ons...

 

[White_Sox_Fan]

Thanks, I'll update my numbers tonight if nothing happens. You do know only the 2 BR and 3 BR are counted as the studio and 1 BR lockoff's don't enter into the official counts.

It also matters which year you chose, as even a different year where weekends fall into different seasons will shift the numbers much more than the negligible variance I'm seeing so far. Heaven forbid you actually chose a leap year or a year that has an extra weekend day in it compare to weekdays. I chose 1992 because that's likely the year they used for OKW and therefore they would want to be consistent. The specifics would work for each year but would vary slightly year to year.

Dean,

I did a spreadsheet on the diff between 2009 & 2010 for SSR. Unfortunately copying it into a post isn't very format friendly. If you PM me with you email I'll send it too you, you can compare it to what you have.

 

[Kmango]

Yes Tim, always carry a little octane with me! Hey, any way you slice it, the outcome is the same. Owners will eventually add on more points to continue their vacation habits...lets do a poll. How many were NOT affected? I would venture to say, more than 50%. Are 50% of those affected going to sell? No way....will they adjust vacation habits, initally yes. After that, I bet no. Thus, ad-ons...

But those points for the add-ons have to come from somewhere -- like people who've decided that DVC no longer works for them. Disney doesn't just magically have infinite points to sell (except at the new resorts, which isn't really helpful if you're 25 points short at an old resort). What I expect to see happen is that over the next few years, some of the people negatively impacted will give up and sell, some people will cope by shortening stays or borrowing points or transfers, and some people will buy more points, which may come from the first group of people. It's not so much that Disney will sell more points, as that the per-membership number of points may go up, while the number of members goes down (excluding new sales at BLT/AKV/etc).

Some of the original OKWers have been talking about how things seemed to work better in the early days because the initial buy-in tended to be much higher, and people were encouraged to come for at least a week at a time. Then, once the buy-in got dropped, things started getting out of whack. This may, over the long run, work to correct that mistake. It's going to be fairly traumatic for a good number of people in the short term, but will probably end up being better in the long run.

 

[drusba]

In general the posters who indicate their travels have a higher weekend percentage have indicated points requirment have gone down.

So if your 6 days and less but go 2 weekend nights your better off.

7 days is close to break even.

If you go 8 (or more up to 12) and have 3 or 4 weekend days your better off, otherwise same number of nights will cost more points.

From what I am seeing at BWV, if your regular pattern of going was 5 nights or 6 nights, you will usually find an increase regardless of which consecutive nights you choose, i.e., even if you went before 5 or 6 nights and included one or two weekend nights, you will still usually have higher cost. At 4 nights or less you can get (but not always get) fewer points if you previously included one or more weekend nights. At 7 nights, you are slightly higher or slightly lower or the same depending on season and room size. Add one or more weekdays onto a 7 night trip and you will be higher, e.g., those who would begin on Sunday and then stay over a week but leave before a third weekend night hit the schedule will have higher point cost. Add one or two weekend nights onto a seven night trip and you get lower but I seriously doubt there were many before who would arrive on a Friday or Saturday and and then also stay through the entire next weekend.

 

[T-i-double-g-err]

Add one or two weekend nights onto a seven night trip and you get lower but I seriously doubt there were many before who would arrive on a Friday or Saturday and and then also stay through the entire next weekend.

Not sure about this comment. If people have a week off from work, I can see stays that begin with a Sat. night and end with a Sat. night = 3 high point nights in a vacation. People arriving on Saturday morning staying 8 nights and leaving the following Sunday maximize their vacation time from work.

 

[tjkraz]

Yes Tim, always carry a little octane with me! Hey, any way you slice it, the outcome is the same. Owners will eventually add on more points to continue their vacation habits...lets do a poll. How many were NOT affected? I would venture to say, more than 50%. Are 50% of those affected going to sell? No way....will they adjust vacation habits, initally yes. After that, I bet no. Thus, ad-ons...

But it's still a VERY limited add-on market that would have been directly created by the reallocation in order for that to have been a motivator. You're talking about people who:

1. Have had their trips negatively impacted by the change.

2. Are not ticked-off enough to either sell or take a firm stance on no more add-ons.

3. Are rigidly determined to maintain their current vacation patterns (rather than altering their plans to better fit the new system.)

4. Wouldn't have otherwise been in the market for an add-on in the near future (can't really count people who were going to add anyway.)

5. Are impacted enough to actually justify an add-on. Some may just be 2 points or 10 points short, and can manage by borrowing for many years to come.

6. Have the resources to add more points.

ALL of those would have to apply in order for this reallocation to earn DVC new business. With only about 130,000 families members of DVC, I think that's a pretty small market for tiny little add-on contracts. And it will NOT be a growing market. Now that the reallocation is done, anyone who buys from this point forward has full knowledge of the new values.

Meanwhile, among the cons that have come from the reallocation are:

1. DVC is no longer the value it used to be to new (potential) members. DVC has undoubtedly lost a segment of its potential market FOR YEARS TO COME because some accommodations are effectively going up in price by 20%. If you're comparing to Value or even Moderate rates, DVC no longer stacks-up nearly as well as it did in the past.

2. Obviously it has created a lot of ill will among current members who (in my opinion) don't really understand the nature of--or need for--a periodic reallocation.

One final thought: IF this move were driven by a desire to sell more points, why not do it 2 years ago? Why not 5 years ago or 8 years ago? I believe that Dean has said that DVC has known a reallocation was needed as far back as 2001, but they held off doing it out of fear of member backlash. (That's also 2-3 years before Jim Lewis was appointed VP of DVC.)

I just don't see how this could result in a net positive impact on sales. But DVC had to bite the bullet at some point. I'll agree that sales are very much a concern. But rather than predicting that the reallocation will increase sales, I think it will probably decrease sales in the short term. But with the resort offerings DVC has available now, they probably feel they can weather the storm and get this necessary move out of the way.

 

[Kmango]

But it's still a VERY limited add-on market that would have been directly created by the reallocation in order for that to have been a motivator. You're talking about people who:

1. Have had their trips negatively impacted by the change.

2. Are not ticked-off enough to either sell or take a firm stance on no more add-ons.

3. Are rigidly determined to maintain their current vacation patterns (rather than altering their plans to better fit the new system.)

4. Wouldn't have otherwise been in the market for an add-on in the near future (can't really count people who were going to add anyway.)

5. Are impacted enough to actually justify an add-on. Some may just be 2 points or 10 points short, and can manage by borrowing for many years to come.

6. Have the resources to add more points.

ALL of those would have to apply in order for this reallocation to earn DVC new business. With only about 130,000 families members of DVC, I think that's a pretty small market for tiny little add-on contracts. And it will NOT be a growing market. Now that the reallocation is done, anyone who buys from this point forward has full knowledge of the new values.

Meanwhile, among the cons that have come from the reallocation are:

1. DVC is no longer the value it used to be to new (potential) members. DVC has undoubtedly lost a segment of its potential market FOR YEARS TO COME because some accommodations are effectively going up in price by 20%. If you're comparing to Value or even Moderate rates, DVC no longer stacks-up nearly as well as it did in the past.

2. Obviously it has created a lot of ill will among current members who (in my opinion) don't really understand the nature of--or need for--a periodic reallocation.

One final thought: IF this move were driven by a desire to sell more points, why not do it 2 years ago? Why not 5 years ago or 8 years ago? I believe that Dean has said that DVC has known a reallocation was needed as far back as 2001, but they held off doing it out of fear of member backlash. (That's also 2-3 years before Jim Lewis was appointed VP of DVC.)

I just don't see how this could result in a net positive impact on sales. But DVC had to bite the bullet at some point. I'll agree that sales are very much a concern. But rather than predicting that the reallocation will increase sales, I think it will probably decrease sales in the short term. But with the resort offerings DVC has available now, they probably feel they can weather the storm and get this necessary move out of the way.

And 7. Prefers to add-on via Disney rather than resale.

 

[keishashadow]

Looking at the new charts, one thing that strikes me as an advantage is that we try to maximize the weeks we are out (Spring Break, Summer, etc...) from work. That usually means going on a Saturday and coming back the next Saturday (7 Days). I'd like to maximize my time out so going out on Saturday and then coming back the next Sunday (8 days) would be better. The new charts encourage this:

Sat - Sun (8-days) @ SSR

Dream (very do-able since school is out in mid-May):

I do feel for those with stays impacted. You guys definitely have my sympathy. Here's hoping for some relief, perhaps relaxed add-on rules (i.e. - 10 pt add-ons, etc.) and transfer rules that could really lessen the blow...

not so for many of us up north, not unusal for school to start 3rd week of August & run thru mid June, if not longer due to snow days that we must factor in to be 'safe'

as if (looking out my window & seeing an inch of ice on top of the foot of snow) i needed another reason to move south

But those points for the add-ons have to come from somewhere -- like people who've decided that DVC no longer works for them. Disney doesn't just magically have infinite points to sell (except at the new resorts, which isn't really helpful if you're 25 points short at an old resort). What I expect to see happen is that over the next few years, some of the people negatively impacted will give up and sell, some people will cope by shortening stays or borrowing points or transfers, and some people will buy more points, which may come from the first group of people. It's not so much that Disney will sell more points, as that the per-membership number of points may go up, while the number of members goes down (excluding new sales at BLT/AKV/etc).

not infinite, yet im thinking they've ROFRd many points back over the last 6 months, including the older resorts & need to 'move' them

over the past couple of years (other than BC) add on points (in range of 25 to 75 or so) were available for my UY-October when my guide would call me to chat

who knows, maybe DVC will offer a one time 'fire-sale' on 25-50 point cash add ons to help keep the peace for those who r short overall - not just BLT

 

[White_Sox_Fan]

For anyone interested I have posted my spreadsheet analysis of the reallocation for SSR on my picasa page in an album called SSR Reallocation.

http://picasaweb.google.com/Bowl12X/

 

[bcrook]

Many posts have claimed that a vast majority of people use S-F reservations (thus the need for reallocation), therefore with that logic a vast majority of people will be negatively affected by this move - some estimates were at 75%. Did it have to be the full 20% increase at all at once? [My vacation planned this year would cost me 35 points more next year that is significant.] We don't even know what this will do? There is a lot of speculation that it will balance out the week, but I really don't see how. I don't have enough points to book weekends, so I won't. Once again as a S-F traveller, I am in the majority. One more thing that I haven't seen mentioned in the thread (and I have read all of it) is that 2 bedroom units should be sitting empty at a much higher rate, because the easiest solution is to downgrade room size.

I am just amazed how secretive this has been. One would think if there were so many people not being able to secure a room when they want to go, DVC would have had a task force out looking into this and asking for member suggestions to improve. They could have had Dean, Chuck, and Tim working the DISboards preparing us for this months ago, because their arguments have gone a long way to helping me come to grips with this. I am still sad that I have lost a day from trips each year, but I am a little bit more informed.

 

[jecpva]

But it's still a VERY limited add-on market that would have been directly created by the reallocation in order for that to have been a motivator. You're talking about people who:

1. Have had their trips negatively impacted by the change.

2. Are not ticked-off enough to either sell or take a firm stance on no more add-ons.

3. Are rigidly determined to maintain their current vacation patterns (rather than altering their plans to better fit the new system.)

4. Wouldn't have otherwise been in the market for an add-on in the near future (can't really count people who were going to add anyway.)

5. Are impacted enough to actually justify an add-on. Some may just be 2 points or 10 points short, and can manage by borrowing for many years to come.

6. Have the resources to add more points.

ALL of those would have to apply in order for this reallocation to earn DVC new business. With only about 130,000 families members of DVC, I think that's a pretty small market for tiny little add-on contracts. And it will NOT be a growing market. Now that the reallocation is done, anyone who buys from this point forward has full knowledge of the new values.

Meanwhile, among the cons that have come from the reallocation are:

1. DVC is no longer the value it used to be to new (potential) members. DVC has undoubtedly lost a segment of its potential market FOR YEARS TO COME because some accommodations are effectively going up in price by 20%. If you're comparing to Value or even Moderate rates, DVC no longer stacks-up nearly as well as it did in the past.

2. Obviously it has created a lot of ill will among current members who (in my opinion) don't really understand the nature of--or need for--a periodic reallocation.

One final thought: IF this move were driven by a desire to sell more points, why not do it 2 years ago? Why not 5 years ago or 8 years ago? I believe that Dean has said that DVC has known a reallocation was needed as far back as 2001, but they held off doing it out of fear of member backlash. (That's also 2-3 years before Jim Lewis was appointed VP of DVC.)

I just don't see how this could result in a net positive impact on sales. But DVC had to bite the bullet at some point. I'll agree that sales are very much a concern. But rather than predicting that the reallocation will increase sales, I think it will probably decrease sales in the short term. But with the resort offerings DVC has available now, they probably feel they can weather the storm and get this necessary move out of the way.

I don't know the exact reasoning of Disney/DVC as unfortunately they didn't invite me to any of their meetings or ask my opinion, but here are a few counter points to consider:

If DVC has the ROFR, they essentially control anyone selling their points. In the scheme of things, I would think this is minor, but if DVC bought up these points, they would be making money on the resale of points they made money on selling in the first place. I'm sure they mark up the price from whomever they buy them from. I'd assume the typical member will call DVC rather than a timeshare reseller if they want to add onto their home resort. Human nature, I wouldn't but I think you'd find most people would.

Anyone buying a new DVC contract now has to buy more points for the same S-F vacation members had taken in the past. This doesn't affect the full week stays much, but basically it raises the points needed for the most economical stay. Mathmatically, the only purchaser of DVC that might not buy as many points would be people looking to stay maybe 8 or 9 nites over 2 weekends. Probably not a high percentage "guest". I'm sure Disney has all of these stats and worked it to their advantage.

The bottom line in this is DVC should have been up front rather than burying the notice in an advertisement Email. They probably should have done this over multiple years so the impact wouldn't have been so severe. The timing, considering this economy was extremely poor. My wife and I attended the weekly Members Meeting a few weeks ago at Atlantic Dance just as they were raising the points cost and we were discussing what poor timing. When you're sitting there and the DVC people keep harping how the price is going up and now's the time to buy, kind of turns you off. I thought it was kind of insensitive to the reality of the current state of things. Then how this was reallocation was handled. Makes me question their customer focus.

 

[Anal Annie]

Yes Tim, always carry a little octane with me! Hey, any way you slice it, the outcome is the same. Owners will eventually add on more points to continue their vacation habits...lets do a poll. How many were NOT affected? I would venture to say, more than 50%. Are 50% of those affected going to sell? No way....will they adjust vacation habits, initally yes. After that, I bet no. Thus, ad-ons...

Not necessarily after this stunt!! I am SO-O glad I didn't talk DH into a 30 point add-on at BLT only to panic 3 days later and find out I really needed 35 or 40 to make the whole banking & borrowing thing work out. This has really busted my DVC bubble.

I am seriously wondering what we could've bought with our $21,500 with Marriott right now!!!!! I am not quite to the point of selling just yet. But I am pretty PO'd about it. The changes DO affect what we had planned out for our next 2 trips after this summer - it means that SOMETHING has to change on one of them if we don't want to start a borrowing pattern - likely we will have to drop a day and that may not make the airfare worth it...so in the END...might just drop the whole trip. I just don't know yet.

If we were to ever able to add-on I want it to be for good reason...not because we're FORCED to do it in order to keep our plans. It should be a happy purchase not an aggravating one. I don't know yet what our workaround will be for our other plans but my inclination and disappointment is leading me in the opposite direction of an add-on. I don't like feeling jerked around like this.

I am also irritated that I don't receive these emails they send out either. (I still haven't had time to log onto the DVC website to even read about these latest changes!) I emailed MS about the email thing (or lack of it) earlier this month. I got a reply back on Jan. 12 from someone in "online communications" saying that I was indeed set up correctly and they didn't know why I wasn't receiving them. She said they had more emails scheduled to go out this month and if I didn't receive them to call. So I just hung up from spending 42 min. on hold with MS while they "checked" again. For some reason they could not Xfer me to this "online communications" department. Once again I had to sit thru the "did you check your junk mail box" excuse. YES, DARN IT!!! Then the CM gets her supervisor on. He says something to the effect of "well, you know this information IS posted on the website so you can just go there to see it". I was like "NOT my point!" I should not have to inspect the DVC website every day to see if there's anything new. If there's an email that goes out to SOME members I want it as well. Either fix it or explain it.

I'm officially a DIS-satisfied member now!

 

[bub]

I'm still so depressed about these changes. Of course they benefit Disney's bottom line, because otherwise why would they do this and put up with the complaints? I did know that they could do this, but I guess after many years of membership I did not expect such a large change.

I have not received any official notice of this change. Some have mentioned an email, but I did not receive it. It seems wrong to make such a major change without immediately notifying the membership. If I did not read these boards, I would not know and neither would my family who also belong to DVC but do not read the boards (they have me to do that!). I guess eventually we will get the new charts in the mail with a planner, but since people are now planning 2010 vacations, it seems like it will be coming too late.

I also don't understand why we have just one huge thread for all our comments on this. It is the biggest change DVC has made, in my opinion, since I joined 13 years ago. Putting it all in one thread makes it hard to sort out all of the different aspects being discussed. But I'm glad we have this site to share our vacations, knowledge and (sometimes) frustrations.

I will be shortening my vacations and NOT adding on.

 

[bobbiwoz]

I'm still so depressed about these changes. Of course they benefit Disney's bottom line, because otherwise why would they do this and put up with the complaints? I did know that they could do this, but I guess after many years of membership I did not expect such a large change.

I have not received any official notice of this change. Some have mentioned an email, but I did not receive it. It seems wrong to make such a major change without immediately notifying the membership. If I did not read these boards, I would not know and neither would my family who also belong to DVC but do not read the boards (they have me to do that!). I guess eventually we will get the new charts in the mail with a planner, but since people are now planning 2010 vacations, it seems like it will be coming too late.

I also don't understand why we have just one huge thread for all our comments on this. It is the biggest change DVC has made, in my opinion, since I joined 13 years ago. Putting it all in one thread makes it hard to sort out all of the different aspects being discussed. But I'm glad we have this site to share our vacations, knowledge and (sometimes) frustrations.

I will be shortening my vacations and NOT adding on.

The e-mails only direct you to the members' site where you read about them. You are getting an "alert to go to the members' site," not special information.

Bobbi

PS. This came after the notice about Tree House sales:
Plus...

Disney Parks Celebrate US Military with Free Admission in 2009
New wait-list process designed to improve Member experience
Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points Charts
Sanaa reservations begin Feb. 16

 

[Sammie]

Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays at Disney Vacation Club Resorts, Disney Vacation Club has adjusted 2010 Vacation Points charts, reducing Vacation Point requirements for Friday and Saturday nights.

In addition to better reflecting the changes in Members' vacationing patterns, the adjusted charts make accommodations more affordable during many popular Walt Disney World® events, such as Mickey's Very Merry Christmas Party and ESPN The Weekend.

If this truly is the reason, you basically have a major change to point usage due to the complaints of those wanting weekends and some wanting 9 nights out of 365 for MVMCP and ESPN,

So what happens when those affected by the change complain now. When does it end. Which squeaky wheel is making the most noise and getting its way.

 

[bobbiwoz]

It seems to me that many members have adjusted vacations, or WDW get- aways to not include weekends. There are people like DH and I who must go to WDW for long weekends because of other things. We always (Before DVC for us) went to the F&G show for a Friday and Saturday night. Sometimes now I stay Sunday night or go out a night earlier to even up the point usage a little bit, but I'm alone then.

The parties, like MNSSHP and MVMCP often are on Friday and Sunday and so, Friday it must be for us to go together. I wish the adjustment was made in stages, but I am happy that MS has worked to even up the points a bit.

I also wish there were different threads to discuss this. They could be broken into resorts...how each resort is affected and let the little subgroups of owners talk about it.

Bobbi