Does Disney have to offer DVC perks?

[Bing Showei]

I thought dvc owners got free park passes with each stay back then.

There was a period of four years where owners who bought prior to 1995 were guaranteed to length of stay tickets (up to 1/2 max occupancy), while those who bought post 1995 were not. I can’t find any evidence there was any ticket discount, but there may have been a small discount.

As long as there is enough chlorine, the pee is neutralized. Just keep giving me $17 long islands.

I see what you did there. Chlorine is to grandfathering, as pee is to restrictions… or you’re really just talking chlorine. In which case, Amen. And amen.

 

[sssteele]

I think you may be overestimating the history of perks, what they offered and the impact it had on the sales.

Even now, the average buyer does not buy for the perks. They buy DVC for DVC and I’d bet 95% of them didn’t even think about the perks or just
see them as a bonus.

So, I don’t think the loss of perks would ever impact sales to the degree it matters. Obviously offering shiny things is nice, but very few DVC owners who are blue card will sell if the AP is gone.

We bought hoping it stays around as it’s a big benefit for my kids and their households. But, if it doesn’t, then it doesn’t. We still ended up with RIV points which is why we bought.

Just don’t agree that CMs are pushing perks as the big selling point when my own experience is different. Or that the minimal discount of years past was what swayed someone to spend over $12 k for DVC.

Wife and I, most likely, won't sell, but we'll certainly spend many fewer days in the parks. We currently spend 20 to 30 days, and spend money on meals, snacks, and merchandise as well.

 

[Sandisw]

Wife and I, most likely, won't sell, but we'll certainly spend many fewer days in the parks. We currently spend 20 to 30 days, and spend money on meals, snacks, and merchandise as well.

I will be visiting that much as well, but will just buy an AP at regular price because it will still be better than daily tickets,

So, for us, it will still make sense even at full price.

 

[Mumof4mice]

Plus, offering Disney’s timeshare owners a pass that is offered freely to any human being by virtue of being one of 22 Million people with a Florida address is less magnanimous than it is highway robbery of the estimated 500,000 high traffic owners for whom Mickey rolls out the literal “Welcome Home” mat to who don’t live in Florida.

Agree with this. Disney doesn't want guests with packed lunches and bottled water booking free FPs, clogging ride queues or staking out the best viewing spots for shows and parades. Disneyland has presumably reached the tipping point, where the improved experience for tourists from reduced local attendance has increased the total productivity of the parks.

If WDW wanted to control attendance, offering severely restricted local APs - Epcot after 4, Starlight pass (a la Tokyo DL; entry after 6pm) would achieve it more efficiently than removing DVC discounts from a subset of guests who have demonstrated the possession of means and the willingness to spend it.

Who knows? It could even encourage locals to buy small contracts.

 

[Philsfan77]

Without any perks why would anyone buy direct at all ? The perks are the biggest selling point of buying direct .

The same reason people buy timeshares in every other association directly that don't offer any perks at all...because they get bamboozled in person and make a spur of the moment purchase when they are in the magic, and never realize there is a resale market with better value for the same product.

 

[sethschroeder]

What sort of “data” are you looking for to convince you that Disney can pee in our pool and ownership will still happily go for a swim? The absence of ticket discounts? Relatively speaking, that’s a pretty low bar.

There is no data. That is my point so DVC is not looking at historical data they would be doing market research instead to decide.

Not sure if it was you or someone else but it was called out that Disney could see that removing perks was fine where I am saying they have no data on that. They have data on reducing or changing perks but not removing perks.

Being “relative” is exactly the point. You had families the previous year saving $360 (and would continue to for another four years) while new owners during that time get to save a little over $60. That’s an 83% reduction in benefit for a new owner. On what planet is a new owner supposed to see that and think, “I’m so lucky it’s 10%”? Relatively speaking, that 10% discount was the shaft.

Except where did I say they couldn't reduce the ticket discount from AP to a length of stay discount on tickets? Again the whole purpose of this thread is about removal of perks no changing of perks.

Just like in your example people who buy in 2022 would likely not even know there used to be a DVC AP discount. (I do think though the DVC AP discount returns)

My point was actually that in 1995, there was a big sales incentive that was taken away and Disney’s timeshare sold just fine.

Just for reference:
DVC froze the price in 1995 for 4 years without a price increase even with launching BWV
Price from Jul 1995 to Jan 1999 was $62.75
In 1995 based on inflation is $110.84 per point
In 1998 based on inflation is $103.63 per point

I wouldn't expect the current RIV price to last even another 12 months less alone 4 years and its doubtful VGF 1.1 changes this math.

Even now, the average buyer does not buy for the perks. They buy DVC for DVC and I’d bet 95% of them didn’t even think about the perks or just see them as a bonus.

Except it makes the sales process go smoother. The whole purpose of these fairly "low cost" perks for Disney is to make people feel warm and fuzzy for buying DVC and also to make it seem like "everything is bundled in".

It makes little sense to eliminate all perks from DVC which was the whole point of this thread to talk about if Disney has to even offer any perks.

If we want to talk about which perks Disney could eliminate or change I am game for that because I still think a change they might look at is discounted park tickets only while staying with direct points or possibly a length of stay ticket discount.

 

[Sandisw]

There is no data. That is my point so DVC is not looking at historical data they would be doing market research instead to decide.

Not sure if it was you or someone else but it was called out that Disney could see that removing perks was fine where I am saying they have no data on that. They have data on reducing or changing perks but not removing perks.



Except where did I say they couldn't reduce the ticket discount from AP to a length of stay discount on tickets? Again the whole purpose of this thread is about removal of perks no changing of perks.

Just like in your example people who buy in 2022 would likely not even know there used to be a DVC AP discount. (I do think though the DVC AP discount returns)



Just for reference:
DVC froze the price in 1995 for 4 years without a price increase even with launching BWV
Price from Jul 1995 to Jan 1999 was $62.75
In 1995 based on inflation is $110.84 per point
In 1998 based on inflation is $103.63 per point

I wouldn't expect the current RIV price to last even another 12 months less alone 4 years and its doubtful VGF 1.1 changes this math.



Except it makes the sales process go smoother. The whole purpose of these fairly "low cost" perks for Disney is to make people feel warm and fuzzy for buying DVC and also to make it seem like "everything is bundled in".

It makes little sense to eliminate all perks from DVC which was the whole point of this thread to talk about if Disney has to even offer any perks.

If we want to talk about which perks Disney could eliminate or change I am game for that because I still think a change they might look at is discounted park tickets only while staying with direct points or possibly a length of stay ticket discount.

Except I have been through a lot of presentations with DVC sales people over the years and not once has the perks been part of the presentation. They have not lead with that at all and not even brought them up unless we did first.

So my point remains that unless the prospective buyer is bringing up membership magic or resale options and guides are stating differences, they sell DVC for being a less expensive option of staying onsite and being a WDW guest (which, those are not perks, IMO) and getting the same magic that cash guests get.

Do I ever see them getting rid of them? No because as you mention, there are things that are easy to provide. But, if there were no perks of being DVC...no blue card discounts...would sales be impacted? IMO, it would be negligible at best.

 

[Sandisw]

The same reason people buy timeshares in every other association directly that don't offer any perks at all...because they get bamboozled in person and make a spur of the moment purchase when they are in the magic, and never realize there is a resale market with better value for the same product.

Except now there is a resort...and will be future resorts down the line...that is not available for resale buyers. So, blue card benefits aside, that is a big difference for many new buyers. RIV is proving popular enough to lead some buyers direct, even when they know resale exists. Especially if the resale resorts they are considering are near park resorts where savings are no longer as big as they once were.

 

[sethschroeder]

Do I ever see them getting rid of them? No because as you mention, there are things that are easy to provide. But, if there were no perks of being DVC...no blue card discounts...would sales be impacted? IMO, it would be negligible at best.

Which really was my original response to this.

Someone else had simply brought up that Disney now had proof that removing perks was fine which I didn't agree with since they have always existed just sometimes "better" sometimes "worse". As you said you didn't see them really bring up perks where as my last time on DCL perks were part of the sales presentation and if I remember right in the materials they handed out.

 

[icc2515]

Agree with this. Disney doesn't want guests with packed lunches and bottled water booking free FPs, clogging ride queues or staking out the best viewing spots for shows and parades. Disneyland has presumably reached the tipping point, where the improved experience for tourists from reduced local attendance has increased the total productivity of the parks.

If WDW wanted to control attendance, offering severely restricted local APs - Epcot after 4, Starlight pass (a la Tokyo DL; entry after 6pm) would achieve it more efficiently than removing DVC discounts from a subset of guests who have demonstrated the possession of means and the willingness to spend it.

I completely agree with the first paragraph. AP holders, especially FL residents, are low profit guests. They go after work or on the weekend. They can eat before they go they may not spend the night and do make the parks a lot busier. At $600 per FL AP renewal it only takes 4 trips before every additional trip is essentially free to the passholder not even taking into account the park hopper addon. From a business standpoint AP's are not a good idea. The biggest complaint at the parks is wait time for rides and how crowded they are. You can solve both by doing away with AP's while at the same time raising profits and spending per guest. DVC is the best customer as they have a built in reason to go at least every 3 years, if they don't Disney can rent the unused rooms and pocket the cash. If members rent the rooms that is more people to buy tickets or if they get frustrated and sell there are 2 people out there waiting to take their place.

 

[RoseGold]

From a business standpoint AP's are not a good idea. The biggest complaint at the parks is wait time for rides and how crowded they are. You can solve both by doing away with AP's while at the same time raising profits and spending per guest.

There's a lot between the old system and no APs (current system). I'd be fine with lots of blackouts, a weekday AP or after 1PM or whatever. IMO, the AP that makes the most sense is the hotel guest AP that only works when you are staying on site.

 

[Carol_]

The same reason people buy timeshares in every other association directly that don't offer any perks at all...because they get bamboozled in person and make a spur of the moment purchase when they are in the magic, and never realize there is a resale market with better value for the same product.

We bought direct after loads of research (over a year of consideration), knowing about the resale options, and only talking to sales for long enough to confirm what we knew and to set up a contract before flying out of MCO within the next 2 hours… We weren’t bamboozled, and we weren’t cheated. We also weren’t lied to about what was and wasn’t offered. I’m thrilled that people can buy resale and feel great about it. There’s no need to condescend to direct purchasers with accusations of poor or uninformed decision making. Each person has a different financial situation to consider.

 

[icc2515]

the AP that makes the most sense is the hotel guest AP that only works when you are staying on site.

That's really a good "out of the box" thinking. It would benefit both Disney by renting hotel rooms and guests by making a cheaper option for tickets while promoting multiple onsite stays.

 

[Bing Showei]

The same reason people buy timeshares in every other association directly that don't offer any perks at all...because they get bamboozled in person and make a spur of the moment purchase when they are in the magic, and never realize there is a resale market with better value for the same product.

I think it's generally accepted that getting caught up in the moment while vacationing will happen to a large percentage of buyers at WDW, but given the Disney timeshare product as it is offered today, a very educated buyer could choose to buy direct as well with compelling reasons to do so.

While resale is not so challenging as to be insurmountable, it’s not easy. At least not the way Disney makes it easy. I’ve read enough horror stories on these boards (including living my own around tax issues with a foreign seller and the IRS threatening to put a lien on my timeshare despite every party involved doing everything right) to understand that there are risks involved with going the resale route (mostly involving lost time, as opposed to money).

If we didn’t buy when we did (pre-2019), and decided to enter the Disney timeshare system today, I would lean heavily towards buying direct, knowing everything I know about the resale market notwithstanding.

 

[mustinjourney]

I see what you did there. Chlorine is to grandfathering, as pee is to restrictions… or you’re really just talking chlorine. In which case, Amen. And amen.

just talking about chlorine.

sometimes a cigar is a cigar.

 

[Mumof4mice]

From a business standpoint AP's are not a good idea. The biggest complaint at the parks is wait time for rides and how crowded they are. You can solve both by doing away with AP's while at the same time raising profits and spending per guest. DVC is the best customer as they have a built in reason to go at least every 3 years, if they don't Disney can rent the unused rooms and pocket the cash. If members rent the rooms that is more people to buy tickets or if they get frustrated and sell there are 2 people out there waiting to take their place.

APs were offered to fill unused capacity. But Disney has found more profitable ways to smooth out attendance (festivals) and utilize the capacity (paid parties). As soon as Disneyland APs no longer added to the bottom lines, they were sunsetted.

That WDW APs haven't been discontinued means they are still a net positive revenue generator. Like Amazon Prime memberships, APs are a tool to increase our spending and increase park revenue. That DVC members see access to Gold APs as a substantial perk is a happy coincidence.

 

[Mumof4mice]

By the way, I thought the pee vs chlorine analogy was spot on!

 

[sethschroeder]

DVC is the best customer as they have a built in reason to go at least every 3 years, if they don't Disney can rent the unused rooms and pocket the cash.

Except read around here and you notice more long term members fine with staying in the hotels or doing other things.

This goes back to the overall strategy. You remove ME giving a reason to have a rental car, you have free parking for DVC, you then price park tickets to where people skip parks for days/trips, now the guest when looking to go to dinner will expand beyond Parks/Resort/Disney Springs.

From a business standpoint AP's are not a good idea. The biggest complaint at the parks is wait time for rides and how crowded they are. You can solve both by doing away with AP's while at the same time raising profits and spending per guest.

We will see if things change but as parties showed previously Disney was packing people in for Halloween events as an example instead of just raising the price. Disney also doesn't need to actually change anything they now have a built in attendance restriction for Annual Passes. You can even choose to say Gold APs can only pre-book 2 days where as Platinum could pre-book 4 days.

I just don't see them eliminating APs at WDW and if they were making a change like that I feel like they would already be laying the groundwork not carrying on as is.

 

[Philsfan77]

We bought direct after loads of research (over a year of consideration), knowing about the resale options, and only talking to sales for long enough to confirm what we knew and to set up a contract before flying out of MCO within the next 2 hours… We weren’t bamboozled, and we weren’t cheated. We also weren’t lied to about what was and wasn’t offered. I’m thrilled that people can buy resale and feel great about it. There’s no need to condescend to direct purchasers with accusations of poor or uninformed decision making. Each person has a different financial situation to consider.

You got caught up in 1 word in my entire post, and completely missed the point of the actual post and the quote I was replying to. I also bought direct (at the time Copper Creek was $182 with incentives, and resale was $150...the $32 difference wasn't substantial enough for me to be deterred because my math said I can make that money up). The post I replied to, said why would anyone buy direct if there were no perks. The answer to me is simple, and it's why other timeshares have no issues selling out their own timeshares without offering any perks. Thats the key point of my response.

We were on our honeymoon 4 years ago in Costa Rica (awesome time, and beautiful country - at least the parts we were in). Our last part of our trip, we stayed at a Secrets - I believe it's AM timeshare group, but not positive. Anyways, throughout the trip, their sales reps walked the grounds, and would try and get people to go to the presentation. My wife and I, wanted to do the sunset booze cruise one night, so we said, sure we will go to the presentation (got our $200 in activities benefits for going, that paid for the sunset booze cruise). We knew we weren't going to buy in, but we sat through the presentation with 10 other couples, and then they split us off with a sales agent. In that time of the 10 couples...3 bought this timeshare. This is who Disney targets on their cruises, in the Resorts and in Disney Springs. It's ultimately why I feel, even with no perks, they would still have no issues selling direct. While you and I did research...a lot of other people simply get caught up in the moment. They don't do the research, and they buy on the spot. They definitely don't know about resale.

Spend a couple of weeks on the facebook group for these boards. You'll see at least once a week a post from someone saying Resale or Direct and why. Within that post you will see at least 8-10 other people comment "what's resale" or I wish I knew what resale was before I bought in.

For me, All salespeople are out to bamboozle you. I'm sorry if that word offended you...but the reality is, if they didn't mention the bustling resale market to you within their presentation (of course they never would because they don't want people to explore that market), than to me, they left out pertinent information about how you can become a DVC member.

 

[Philsfan77]

I think it's generally accepted that getting caught up in the moment while vacationing will happen to a large percentage of buyers at WDW, but given the Disney timeshare product as it is offered today, a very educated buyer could choose to buy direct as well with compelling reasons to do so.

While resale is not so challenging as to be insurmountable, it’s not easy. At least not the way Disney makes it easy. I’ve read enough horror stories on these boards (including living my own around tax issues with a foreign seller and the IRS threatening to put a lien on my timeshare despite every party involved doing everything right) to understand that there are risks involved with going the resale route (mostly involving lost time, as opposed to money).

If we didn’t buy when we did (pre-2019), and decided to enter the Disney timeshare system today, I would lean heavily towards buying direct, knowing everything I know about the resale market notwithstanding.

Agree there...there will always be people who go direct for the ease of the transaction, and no headaches. Which still comes back to my overall point, to that persons questions of why would anyone buy direct if there were no incentives. People still would...there are enough timeshares out there that don't offer any incentives other than maybe applying the cost of your trip to the purchase, that sell out their own resorts, for me to realize, Disney (especially Disney) could offer nothing, and still sell like hot cakes.