Does anyone think there should be "home resort" member benefits?

[justadreamaway77]

I think its been brought up but points from different resorts can actually be made to trade in and out to other resorts at a reduce or increased rate.

I could see this before home resort benefits. Another thing I could see is further restricting resale so that resale members don't get access to things at a resort (no community hall access unless home resort or "full" dvc owner).

Resale members pay the exact yearly dues that direct buyers do and those that bought resale before the last restrictions.

 

[sethschroeder]

Resale members pay the exact yearly dues that direct buyers do and those that bought resale before the last restrictions.

Maybe I am missing something?

MFs are for your home resort and access to it. Its part of the reason why Riviera direct and resale will be paying the same MFs even with restrictions. Most big changes would simply be a future resale purchase not previous resale that is impacted. If they did anything.

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

The biggest issue I see is that when giving extra benefits to people staying at their home resort you are restricting benefits to non-home resort guests. One of the biggest perks of DVC is being able to stay at other resorts. I enjoy getting to experience all facets of the resorts I don't own at and would be bummed if certain things were off limits or impossible to book because I don't own there.

 

[sethschroeder]

The biggest issue I see is that when giving extra benefits to people staying at their home resort you are restricting benefits to non-home resort guests. One of the biggest perks of DVC is being able to stay at other resorts. I enjoy getting to experience all facets of the resorts I don't own at and would be bummed if certain things were off limits or impossible to book because I don't own there.

I think thats the point though. You would not have a bigger disparity between the two types of members and push people to be buying direct points.

I mean the same can be said about not getting access to the Epcot lounge, Stormalong Bay, ect. Those are all restrictions on something that someone else paid for out of the initial purchase or with MFs.

I am just thinking subtraction is more likely than addition.

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

I think thats the point though. You would not have a bigger disparity between the two types of members and push people to be buying direct points.

I mean the same can be said about not getting access to the Epcot lounge, Stormalong Bay, ect. Those are all restrictions on something that someone else paid for out of the initial purchase or with MFs.

I am just thinking subtraction is more likely than addition.

I get the restrictions on Blue Card vs White Card. It makes sense for Disney to differentiate the two in a way to make people go direct. I don't really see though how differentiating guests who are staying at their home resort versus a 7 month switch to a non-home resort makes sense.

 

[sethschroeder]

I get the restrictions on Blue Card vs White Card. It makes sense for Disney to differentiate the two in a way to make people go direct. I don't really see though how differentiating guests who are staying at their home resort versus a 7 month switch to a non-home resort makes sense.

Not sure how it makes sense that a resort owner at RIV can book at BWV but I can not book at RIV because I have resale points.

Restrictions would give you a benefit of less crowded pools, less wear and tear on the community center, ect. I am not saying its the right choice I am just point out this is the path Disney is going down. Others disagree this is the direction DVC is heading which is fine and I don't know I am just guessing based on my professional life and what I have saw other companies do (not in the hotel/timeshare business though so obviously different).

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Restrictions would give you a benefit of less crowded pools, less wear and tear on the community center, ect. I am not saying its the right choice I am just point out this is the path Disney is going down. Others disagree this is the direction DVC is heading which is fine and I don't know I am just guessing based on my professional life and what I have saw other companies do (not in the hotel/timeshare business though so obviously different).

How do restrictions lessen crowds or wear and tear? Your still going to have the same number of people at the resort. The only thing your doing is changing which people those are.

 

[Dean]

I think thats the point though. You would not have a bigger disparity between the two types of members and push people to be buying direct points.

I mean the same can be said about not getting access to the Epcot lounge, Stormalong Bay, ect. Those are all restrictions on something that someone else paid for out of the initial purchase or with MFs.

I am just thinking subtraction is more likely than addition.

While I don't think it'll happen and think the benefit to DVD would be minimal, they could push for sales at certain resorts IF they went this direction. In a sense that's what they've done with Riviera anyway.

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

Not sure how it makes sense that a resort owner at RIV can book at BWV but I can not book at RIV because I have resale points.

That RIV owner can't if he/she is resale owner. RIV is the first in the "new" DVC model. I'm guessing looking back DVC management wishes they made this change decades ago. But as our poster from north of the border points out, there won't really be less wear and tear. The resorts pretty much all run at full capacity and would whether they were 100% all home resort guests or some mix match. I assume wear and tear would be comparable regardless of the makeup of guests.

 

[CarolMN]

I mean the same can be said about not getting access to the Epcot lounge, Stormalong Bay, ect. Those are all restrictions on something that someone else paid for out of the initial purchase or with MFs.

Just an FYI for anyone who may not know:
The EPCOT lounge was paid for by DVD, not DVC Members MFs. DVD (not DVC) controls who may access it.

SAB was built and paid for by Disney Resorts, not DVD (which is the Vacation Club sales and marketing entity). DVC Members who purchased BCV points share the ongoing operating costs (via their dues) with the BC & YC. Guests of those resorts also have access to SAB. DVC/DVCMC/DVD can't prevent the use of SAB by DVC members (or their guests & renters) who are staying at BCV. DVC/DVCMC did & can remove SAB from the Members pool hopping perk from everyone who isn't staying there.

 

[sethschroeder]

How do restrictions lessen crowds or wear and tear? Your still going to have the same number of people at the resort. The only thing your doing is changing which people those are.

No because you are not replacing the people going to the pool likely. If you have lets say 20 people who can't go to the pool because the resort is not their home you will not have 20 more people replacing them but you might get 1 or 2 more people.

Less people using towels means they last longer, less people using chairs means they last longer, ect.

Someone is still renting the room they just can't use certain areas of the resort and thus less wear and tear on that portion of the resort. It may cause additional wear and tear on other items though in the room?

 

[sethschroeder]

That RIV owner can't if he/she is resale owner. RIV is the first in the "new" DVC model. I'm guessing looking back DVC management wishes they made this change decades ago. But as our poster from north of the border points out, there won't really be less wear and tear. The resorts pretty much all run at full capacity and would whether they were 100% all home resort guests or some mix match. I assume wear and tear would be comparable regardless of the makeup of guests.

And just like everything else they can make a "new" system. Like I outlined there are like 6 different versions of owners right now and points that are out there with more or less access to various things.

Just an FYI for anyone who may not know:
The EPCOT lounge was paid for by DVD, not DVC Members MFs. DVD (not DVC) controls who may access it.

SAB was built and paid for by Disney Resorts, not DVD (which is the Vacation Club sales and marketing entity). DVC Members who purchased BCV points share the ongoing operating costs (via their dues) with the BC & YC. Guests of those resorts also have access to SAB. DVC/DVCMC/DVD can't prevent the use of SAB by DVC members (or their guests & renters) who are staying at BCV. DVC/DVCMC did & can remove SAB from the Members pool hopping perk from everyone who isn't staying there.

Yup thanks for explaining further.

I am just taking it a step further and saying MF payments only guarantees you access to things it directly pays for. Paying my BWV MFs has nothing to do with the POLY pool even if I am staying there as usage of points is not payment to my knowledge and my MFs don't then pay for the wear/tear of the resort for future replacement (again to my knowledge).

I am not advocating for any of this but just see ways Disney could potentially change things that would be a negative but they could still spin as a positive.

 

[Sandisw]

Resale members pay the exact yearly dues that direct buyers do and those that bought resale before the last restrictions.

I think they were discussing the rule that BVTC can create 7 month point charts so that non owners pay more to stay elsewhere.

This would not be a resale vs direct issue, but one that allows those that own at a resort stay for less than non owners,

These types of charts do not have to stay point neutral either.

 

[Wiltony]

My one big complaint about VGF as well as PVB and BLT is how much the monorails stink like dirt diapers. These are Disney’s prime resorts and their main mode of transportation stinks, literally.

I have always been surprised at how bad the smell is inside those monorail cars. Considering all the things Disney does right with regard to "show," I'm amazed that they haven't addressed this. The monorail always smells like dirty animals (like a smelly zoo enclosure) to me. I keep expecting to see straw in the corner when I get on one.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

No because you are not replacing the people going to the pool likely. If you have lets say 20 people who can't go to the pool because the resort is not their home you will not have 20 more people replacing them but you might get 1 or 2 more people.

Less people using towels means they last longer, less people using chairs means they last longer, ect.

Someone is still renting the room they just can't use certain areas of the resort and thus less wear and tear on that portion of the resort. It may cause additional wear and tear on other items though in the room?

I get what your saying, but extracting that further, I'd imagine if they implemented these types of rules, the number of people of trading resorts would drop dramatically. Who is paying for DVC "deluxe" accomodations if they don't have access to basic resort amenities like a pool when they can just stay at the Allstars or the Best Western and have a more luxurious experience? If there is zero trading, then all of this was moot. Your just rearranging the chairs on the titanic.

In reality, there wouldn't be zero trading. There will always be some who will value the location more than amenities. But probably not enough to have a material difference to the useful life of these amenities.

 

[sethschroeder]

I get what your saying, but extracting that further, I'd imagine if they implemented these types of rules, the number of people of trading resorts would drop dramatically. Who is paying for DVC "deluxe" accomodations if they don't have access to basic resort amenities like a pool when they can just stay at the Allstars or the Best Western and have a more luxurious experience? If there is zero trading, then all of this was moot. Your just rearranging the chairs on the titanic.

In reality, there wouldn't be zero trading. There will always be some who will value the location more than amenities. But probably not enough to have a material difference to the useful life of these amenities.

I mean that is a single example and does not have to be universal as we see with Riviera being allowed to have its own rules, specific pools to be removed from pool hopping, ect.

I do agree it would drastically decrease the value of trading. Which then brings up the idea that this is ONLY restricted to resale not to all guests who traded in.

Who knows but just outlining I see more restriction based incentive to buy direct/home resorts as opposed to any outright addition of member benefits for home resorts.

 

[DenLo]

I think its been brought up but points from different resorts can actually be made to trade in and out to other resorts at a reduce or increased rate.

I could see this before home resort benefits. Another thing I could see is further restricting resale so that resale members don't get access to things at a resort (no community hall access unless home resort or "full" dvc owner).

Anything funded by dues cannot be restricted from resale.

Thanks for clarifying that even resale members still pay the same dues.

Colors should pair with the theme of the resort. Beachy colors at BCV, BWV. Woodsy colors at CCV and BRV. Key West colors at OKW. Cold, sterile colors at BLT.

I would think more vibrant colors at BLT since it "at the Contemporary Resort". Or match the monorail CM uniforms.

 

[keishashadow]

and about 1-2 times each trip, I have to show my band to a lifeguard while I'm swimming.

Surprised how often they checked when we were there

One of the biggest perks of DVC is being able to stay at other resorts. I enjoy getting to experience all facets of the resorts I don't own at and would be bummed if certain things were off limits or impossible to book because I don't own the

Nice to have perks offered, but inherently, subject to change

I look upon being able to experience other DVC resorts in a different category all together. Have long advocated a much shorter booking window than 7 months for non-home resorts. Believe it may be even moreso prudent to revisit now that there will be so many members vying for a finite number of rooms.

It is unfortunate that many members seemingly bought in with the expectation of whatever current perks that were in force, being an ironclad ‘right’ of membership.

Restrictions would give you a benefit of less crowded pools, less wear and tear on the community center, ect. I am not saying its the right choice I am just point out this is the path Disney is going down. Others disagree this is the direction DVC is heading which is fine

Disney has always encouraged non-guests to visit their resorts & enjoy dining/shopping etc.

It was my understanding that restrictions are in place now that require a dining reservation to visit a resort where you are not a guest. Why should it be any different for a DVC member?

Each resort needs to adhere to proper social distancing including the pool, which in my neck of the woods equates to far less loungers.

It may get to the point where all onsite guests are unable to utilize the amenities if they have reached whatever capacity. Introducing into the mix of those vying for a space those DVC guests from other resorts would complicate things. However, a wristband would go a long way there ala SAB & Aulani practices.

 

[sethschroeder]

It was my understanding that restrictions are in place now that require a dining reservation to visit a resort where you are not a guest. Why should it be any different for a DVC member?

Anyone can get on any bus/boat/walk and show up at the resorts from my understanding even right now. I know during normal times it is no issue to go to any resort you want to.

Also I am not talking about going to a resort for dining. I am talking about people staying at a resort who are not home resort owners not being allowed in the community hall as an example. THis is not a thing today and is very unlikely to be a thing but just an example. The point of this thread was extra benefits for home resort owners. I was simply saying I don't think they add anything but instead just remove things from other people (if they did anything at all which is more likely).

 

[BillPA]

I wouldn't mind have priority on location requests at your home resort. I know it's only a request, but if 2 people want location "X", one is an owner here the other at another DVC, let the owner have their choice before a not owner and always give the least favorite location to CRO cash visitors. That dreaded dumpster view at WL.