DVC expanding offsite - a good thing?

[mjl1969]

I am having trouble seeing what the future of DVC holds. There is certainly only a finite supply of real estate to utilize on property ... and Disney seems to be expanding beyond Florida locations.

I for one dont see how expanding beyond WDW is good thing for the average DVC owner. Hawaii for example .. how many people will actually use their points to go there every year given its distance and lack of Disney offerings once off property? Vero, HHI dont seem like examples of how this could work well.

What I do see happening if this trend continue is more people competing for WDW reservations as more off-site locations are added (since Disney doesnt have any attractions that would draw people year after year after year at these offsite locations).. after all the real attraction of DVC for most owners is WDW itself right?

But the other side of the coin is, when DVC has no more space to build on property, do they just cease expanding? That seems even worse since there will be no incentive to keep DVC owners happy after that.

 

[Chuck S]

Hawaii, in and of itself, is a high traffic tourist area. Unfortunately, in most of those types of areas, timeshares like DVC will be competing with an almost saturated market.

Disney really can't build small amusement parks throughout the USA just to support a nearby DVC location. A timeshare that tries to build in an area that is less well known as a tourist destination will likely not sell well, like Vero Beach, there has to be a draw of some sort. It is a balancing act. DVC does need to keep expanding, but in today's economy it will be difficult to find the right balance of popularity for potential sales, without the market being over saturated.

 

[robertdangelo]

But the other side of the coin is, when DVC has no more space to build on property, do they just cease expanding? That seems even worse since there will be no incentive to keep DVC owners happy after that.

WDW encompasses over 45 square miles. That won't happen for a long time.

 

[adminjedi]

If someone buys a WDW DVC to use it at WDW for approx 40 years, it does not seem that it is good or bad for the "average DVC owner" if there are offsite DVC locations. If you book your home resort prior to the 7 month window, it doesn't matter who owns where. If you trade your WDW home resort to a different WDW resort or to an off location resort, that is no different than any other location trade to WDW resorts. I can't imagine someone buying at Aulani because they want a park hotel. They can buy a park resort for less. My guess is more people who own park DVC resorts will be trading more into Aulani than the other way around. I cannot speak for other owners, but I own at Aulani to use at Aulani because it is a beach front hotel with a beautiful beach, offering great weather year around and THAT is the draw year after year. For my park time, I own at BCV to stay at BCV and I own at AKL to stay at AKL, and will soon own at OKW to stay at OKW.
Maybe that's just me, but I don't think you need to be worried.

 

[sweetdana]

Agreed with others.
As long as you buy a wdw loc for WDW use, book at 11 month and you can always try another one.

A fail would be buying in HA, and trying to get into WDW at 7 month. .. as planning cannot really start until 7 month window.

 

[mjl1969]

Good replies and thank you. However .. Im still not feeling it

Following the contract language to the word, nothing that you say can be argued, but DVC as most people know it (IMO) doesnt mean using it exclusively at your home resort .. its about the nice selection of onsite choices (pick your resort and theme as long as you dont mind being flexible).

My fear is that increasing the offsite share of points will result in more competition for onsite resorts because many more points in the future will be owned offsite. (Presumably because DVC wont have any many more opptys to build onsite).

So .. the more I think about it my preference would be that DVC just stop expanding altogether than to build these peripheral resorts (as beautiful as they may be, there simply wont be the activities to compete with a megaresort like WDW).

 

[DebbieB]

Hawaii is being target marketed to the west coast and Japan/Asia. I don't think alot of people will buy Hawaii points with plans to regularly stay at WDW.

There is plenty of potential for DVC to expand onsite. A couple sites rumored: next to Ft Wilderness, next to Blizzard Beach. Also rumors about Polynesian and Grand Floridian, I wouldn't be surprised to see DVC take over one of the buildings there and convert to DVC rooms.

 

[Sammie]

So basically you are saying people don't take vacations unless they go to Disney World. I think you might want to check your facts on that one.

Adventures by Disney seems to be a very successful company, so obviously there is a market for people who want the Disney brand name but at other locations.

 

[McCrae]

OP, Disney has plenty of places it can add DVC to which are theme park based.

The American market is only one of many markets where DVC can expand.

Currently we have no DVC properties located at any of the non Disney US park loctions.

I would be willing to bet that this will change!

I would guess if you add up all of the visitors globally to Disney parks.... Asia would now probably be the biggest market.


I would also not be surprised if some of the current hotels converted some of their rooms to DVC. Grand Floridian woul be perfect for this.

I like more choice and would be delighted if Disney continues to expand DVC...I hope they do.

 

[lilpooh108]

Hawaii, in and of itself, is a high traffic tourist area. Unfortunately, in most of those types of areas, timeshares like DVC will be competing with an almost saturated market.

Disney really can't build small amusement parks throughout the USA just to support a nearby DVC location. A timeshare that tries to build in an area that is less well known as a tourist destination will likely not sell well, like Vero Beach, there has to be a draw of some sort. It is a balancing act. DVC does need to keep expanding, but in today's economy it will be difficult to find the right balance of popularity for potential sales, without the market being over saturated.

Does anyone have statistics on how Aulani is selling?

 

[CMOORE185]

I may be wrong but it seems to me HH and VB are a great success for DVC. You almost have to own at HH to book a room in the summer months. I have even had trouble once booking VB at the 7 month mark. I think sales wise you need offsite options to bring in the buyers wary of having WDW as an only option. So far the offsite options have had no effect at booking 7 months out at WDW. Until I see more evidence offsite will effect booking at WDW I am for more offsite options. To me it makes DVC more valuable. Now if you are a hard core WDW only DVC member you should own at WDW. As long as you have the 11 month booking option, offsite hotels should not effect you.

 

[mjl1969]

So basically you are saying people don't take vacations unless they go to Disney World. I think you might want to check your facts on that one.

Oh yeah thats exactly what Im saying :

 

[Chuck S]

I may be wrong but it seems to me HH and VB are a great success for DVC. You almost have to own at HH to book a room in the summer months. I have even had trouble once booking VB at the 7 month mark. I think sales wise you need offsite options to bring in the buyers wary of having WDW as an only option. So far the offsite options have had no effect at booking 7 months out at WDW. Until I see more evidence offsite will effect booking at WDW I am for more offsite options. To me it makes DVC more valuable. Now if you are a hard core WDW only DVC member you should own at WDW. As long as you have the 11 month booking option, offsite hotels should not effect you.

While Vero Beach is a beautiful resort and location, it was hardly a great success for DVC. Sales were so slow that the resort was never actually finished as it was originally presented to early buyers. The area across the street was supposed to be filled with villas, but eventually extra unneeded property was sold off, construction halted, and dues subsidized by Disney Vacation Developerment to keep them under the state maximum for increases. That is why there are two different dues structures for Vero Beach.

 

[taaren]

Hawaii is being target marketed to the west coast and Japan/Asia. I don't think alot of people will buy Hawaii points with plans to regularly stay at WDW.

Agree here. I think people who buy Aulani will be those who might want to trade into VGC, or those of us that own VGC will trade into Aulani since the flight cost isn't much higher than going to the East coast. Or people who buy Aulani will be planning on going every 2 to 3 years since the point cost is so high.
It would be awesome to have a Tokyo DVC or Disneyland Paris DVC. I wonder if the German government would let them build a resort that would have a view of Neuschwanstein Castle?

Oh, and of course: another DLR DVC please! 48 units is not enough!

 

[Dean]

Good replies and thank you. However .. Im still not feeling it

Following the contract language to the word, nothing that you say can be argued, but DVC as most people know it (IMO) doesnt mean using it exclusively at your home resort .. its about the nice selection of onsite choices (pick your resort and theme as long as you dont mind being flexible).

My fear is that increasing the offsite share of points will result in more competition for onsite resorts because many more points in the future will be owned offsite. (Presumably because DVC wont have any many more opptys to build onsite).

So .. the more I think about it my preference would be that DVC just stop expanding altogether than to build these peripheral resorts (as beautiful as they may be, there simply wont be the activities to compete with a megaresort like WDW).

It depends on the specifics of the off site venture. Assuming the club remains financially solvent, the ONLY downside to expansion is potential competition at the 7 month window as it stands right now. Some of the specifics may vary if the home resort window changes but the principles should remain the same. Plus each new resort gives every member potential options they may desire later. IF a new resort option has demand above the average for WDW, it helps the 7 month window, if it's below (like VB, HH, SSR & OKW), then it hurts the 7 month window.

One likely consequence of more off property options is higher pressure to initiate a tour and during the sales process. The other minor issue is that it may limit trade options for the area of the DVC resort.

 

[drusba]

Does anyone have statistics on how Aulani is selling?

I have not seen those anywhere. You will find them on this site for Florida resorts because a dedicated member here, wdrl, gathers and then collates the info found in public records available on-line involving sales and declarations of units that are filed with the applicable government agencies. You cannot realistic do that with Aulani. The same info is available on-line in Hawaii but unlike Florida where there is no charge, you get charged a fee for getting information from the public records on-line in Hawaii. It seems that in Hawaii, tax and fee are the two most common words spoken there.

 

[bookwormde]

Where off site DVCs become an issue is when there perceved value (short term and long term) is not equivelent to or greater than the on site properties. Now if they build in markets where you can get a 2br for $200/nt and there is not another $200-400 worth of "added value" like exists with WDW & DL DVC properties by being "on site and immersed in Disney" then it becomes dilituive and makes 7 month reservations much harder for current members.

bookwormde

 

[Dean]

Where off site DVCs become an issue is when there perceved value (short term and long term) is not equivelent to or greater than the on site properties. Now if they build in markets where you can get a 2br for $200/nt and there is not another $200-400 worth of "added value" like exists with WDW & DL DVC properties by being "on site and immersed in Disney" then it becomes dilituive and makes 7 month reservations much harder for current members.

bookwormde

I think the issue with VB and HH wasn't so much the cost issue but the lack of marketing when competing with Marriott, Spinnaker and the like. We'll see if they've learned their lessons in how they approach HI, esp in the local market. I believe to be successful their going to have to operate more like the other guys by doing developer deposits, formally soliciting sales tours, being more sales oriented in those tours and going after current members more aggressively for add ons. That may mean a VIP system to be able to entice current members to part with more cash.

 

[dclfun]

For us, we're not at all interested. If I want to book somewhere other than WDW or DL, it won't be by using my points. We stayed at VB one time when the boys wanted to go see the Dodgers for spring training and IMO wasted megapoints there, and I have no desire to ever visit HH or Aulani. I'm probably in the minority though with people looking to branch out, esp. as their families grow up or the get tired of just WDW. It's not that we don't want to see other places- it's just that there are other properties that deliver the same or better cost value and I don't need to be immersed in Disney if I'm not there.---Kathy

 

[simmons_m]

Would DVD consider converting cruise ship state rooms to DVC rooms?