DVC Moderate Resort Being Reported by WDWNT

[LAS2AMS]

I don't think a moderate DVC is an awful idea, I just am not sure how Disney sees it as a profitable option - or at least as profitable as regular DVC.

And the fact is - nothing that I've seen necessarily indicates that Disney is thinking of building a moderate DVC - only that they would build a DVC next to a moderate. Again I think it's much more likely that they build a normal DVC on par with SSR, only it just happens to share infrastructure with a moderate instead of a deluxe. I think that's much more likely than they build smaller rooms and lower price points.

I agree that if a DVC were added at the CBR, the new-build rooms and facilities would mimic that of a traditional DVC. And as I've discussed extensively, I think the CBR is a superior resort to the SSR, although its layout will make most of the facilities too distant for the average person to walk from the DVC portion, and that may be a problem.

That said, I doubt Disney will offer lower per-point prices. There are two problems with this:
(1) people will buy into the CBR with no intent on staying there;
(2) the CBR sells for less than half of -- and often just one-third of -- the price per night of the Contemporary, Polynesian, etc. and even with upgraded rooms & amenities, you'll have a hard time convincing people to buy into there.

Most likely, the CBR will sell at a similar price point as the deluxe properties, but require fewer points per night. Given that most people purchase enough points for a one-week stay, this will substantially lower their buy-in into the program. It's also possible the fence around the CBR may be expanded from 7-months to 4-months -- at least in the beginning -- to reassure CBR DVC guests who can't commit to vacations 7-months out that other DVC guests won't blow their excess points there. But this may not really be a problem.

I think some people fail to realize what the younger generation wants. As a millennial, I've watched my elders make extreme financial mistakes, and I will do everything I can to ensure I don't do the same. Investing almost $30,000 in a Disney timeshare would feel stupid at the age of 28, however I am young, have a family, make great money, and can afford to travel to Disney yearly. Disney could certainly hook me on a moderate or lower priced offer, but never on something like VGF or Poly. This is a win for Disney if it happens, as it will ensure a younger generation is hooked for 50 years and will continue to come back. I think many on this forum forget that not everyone who is under 35 has thousands upon thousands of dollars to "invest" in leisure. But if Disney hooks me now into a "moderate" or lower priced timeshare, I may be willing to invest in more points at a deluxe resort later in life when my preferences change.

Personally, I would never pay for the "high" amenity resorts, since I'm out at the parks the whole day anyways. And yes, my family owns DVC together (OKW Lovers), so I am aware of the difference in staying DVC vs. non-dvc.

Disney's not targeting demographics. I'd bet the core DVC owners are families who make tremendous sacrifices to get to Disney as opposed to those who are affluent. In fact, I'd bet that the number of people who shouldn't have bought into DVC outweighs the number of those who can readily afford it. Fact is, most people who work in accounting & financial-related positions (which account for a large portion of the upper-income jobs in this country) will advise against timeshare purchases.

When somebody tells a DVC sales rep 'we love Disney, but we really can't afford it -- we [charged this trip / took on a second job / inherited money / etc.] to get here' the Disney sales rep will tell them 'see, the beauty of the DVC is that it makes travel to Disney affordable so you can come here every year.' I guarantee you this exchange takes place daily. Of course, it's a load of crap given the high interest rate, cost of annual dues, cost of meals, tickets, entertainment, etc. But many people are wrapped up in the magic of the moment; plenty who buy don't realize the law enables them to opt out of their purchases within so many (14?) days.

But by offering a lower-cost option (e.g. the CBR at 1/3 fewer points than other resorts), DVC is simply hoping to attract clients who feel more comfortable with the idea of paying $10K less for a week's worth of points.

 

[linzbear]

I see this one starting to pick up steam...

There's a couple of problems with the "Star Wars hotel" idea:
1. Big one - it's still too boy centric. I know Kennedy is all about the women's movement in the movies...but it's still gonna resonate more with boys. Which means a hotel is not a good angle for longterm operations.
2. It's too focused on one IP that can be fickle. I know it's Star Wars - lifelong fan - but I don't trust that it will always be there. Shocking...but if you had told me that Star Wars would change the way it did in April of 1999...I would have been less surprised if I had woke up with my hair sewn to the carpet. All things can change. Especially with Disneys new erratic, freewheeling business model.
3. DVC units are not designed to have "robust" theming. If you noticed - it's all subdued. That's not coincidence. If you are selling to grandparents (a much higher percentage than rack customers)...you can't have a 55 foot tall stormtrooper outside your window. They don't want it...so it wouldn't work. How do you do Star Wars "low key" without it coming off as looking like nothing?

Fair enough, but CBR currently has the over themed Pirates rooms. But you're right, we're thinking about this backwards - what theme will sell to the lower Disney class, and what is the lower Disney class? I feel like I would be it - middle class, middle aged, young kids, go nearly every year, would normally be at moderates, values, or offsite. And we love the heavily themed resorts. Considering the trip reports of similar families, we're not alone in that. They could feasibly continue the Pirates/Mermaids thing and tie it into DHS.

 

[skier_pete]

I don't think there's an issue with the CBR theme being too much for DVC. I was being more specific to the Star Wars idea. A Caribbean theme at a DVC is no different than the Poly or AKV or WLV for level of theming. My point has always been more that they aren't interested in a second level DVC market. That's what resale is about. There will always be resale availability for DVC. As @LAS2AMS points out, a lot of people buy into DVC and can't afford it. I know the resale contract I bought was only owned by the original owner for about 4 years before they sold it. I don't know what their reason was, but certainly when they bought it they weren't thinking they would sell it in 4 years and lose $7,000 on it. The recent changes to resale really make resale the "second tier" DVC. Building a "second tier" DVC and charging as much for it is certainly problematic.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Why are those bad ideas? I've stayed at Pop and an all star both over 10 years ago but still have stayed there. I think the value category while over priced now for a value helps people get on property who can't afford a deluxe. We were routinely value people until my youngest sister came aboard then we moved up to moderates because we needed space for year was my first deluxe stay. Personally while the theming might not be great and the rooms are comparable to a motel 6 at times, it's on Disney property and I don't need more than a bed and shower when I'm at Disney. If we had the means to stay at BC every time I would but we just can't.

The theming...not the hotels/developments - they are fine.

If you notice...pop was copped out on early...they put giant Disney statues everywhere like all star movies or art of animation...

And music and sports were stale from day one...the value concept was good though.

 

[Josh Hendy]

3. DVC units are not designed to have "robust" theming. If you noticed - it's all subdued. That's not coincidence. If you are selling to grandparents (a much higher percentage than rack customers)...you can't have a 55 foot tall stormtrooper outside your window. They don't want it...so it wouldn't work. How do you do Star Wars "low key" without it coming off as looking like nothing?

Well, they did scrap the wonderful water feature at Poly and replace it with a flower planter with a cheesy tiki statue on top.

 

[Josh Hendy]

3. DVC units are not designed to have "robust" theming. If you noticed - it's all subdued. That's not coincidence. If you are selling to grandparents (a much higher percentage than rack customers)...you can't have a 55 foot tall stormtrooper outside your window. They don't want it...so it wouldn't work. How do you do Star Wars "low key" without it coming off as looking like nothing?

Well, they did scrap the wonderful water feature at Poly and replace it with a flower planter with a cheesy tiki statue on top. That's pretty robust IMHO.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Well, they did scrap the wonderful water feature at Poly and replace it with a flower planter with a cheesy tiki statue on top. That's pretty robust IMHO.

Nah...not this time

That thing was old, moldy, and designed by Mike Brady

It also took up too much space (remember phase 2) and $0.78 a month in solar electric and recycled swamp water to run

 

[ParkHoppers]

As far as DVC members are concerned making more resorts at lower buy in will only make the 7 month window more competitive as many who buy at lower cost DVC are mostly trying to stay at higher priced resorts. Buying where you really want to stay will become even more important in the future IMO due to more and more people trying to book at the 7 month window.

 

[skier_pete]

As far as DVC members are concerned making more resorts at lower buy in will only make the 7 month window more competitive as many who buy at lower cost DVC are mostly trying to stay at higher priced resorts. Buying where you really want to stay will become even more important in the future IMO due to more and more people trying to book at the 7 month window.

This is why they won't want to have a resort they sell at a lower point cost - they won't want people buying $120 points at CBV and then staying at high price properties therefore devaluing them. Points will still cost $175 - or likely $200 by then. IF they do it, it would be that the new resort would have a lower per night cost - which would in fact more than likely induce the opposite effect. Owners at this property generally wouldn't own enough points for stays at the nicer properties, but folks at the more expensive properties would try and stretch their points for longer stays buy booking here.

 

[ParkHoppers]

This is why they won't want to have a resort they sell at a lower point cost - they won't want people buying $120 points at CBV and then staying at high price properties therefore devaluing them. Points will still cost $175 - or likely $200 by then. IF they do it, it would be that the new resort would have a lower per night cost - which would in fact more than likely induce the opposite effect. Owners at this property generally wouldn't own enough points for stays at the nicer properties, but folks at the more expensive properties would try and stretch their points for longer stays buy booking here.

We will see what happens but I tend to disagree with you on this. Your examples of recent DVC offerings at high point prices are BLT, Poly and at GF. All of those are in the most desirable locations IMO. BW and BC a close second. I predict CBV to be a lower cost per point and lower points needed for rooms. Remember people can still get on a waitlist for places like BLT and pay high per point for a prime location.

 

[Andrew015]

I'm in the "Moderate DVC ain't happenin' " camp, but if it did.... I think the only way that it "floats" is if they draw a line in the sand and create a separate system altogether. In other words, moderate DVC points only work @ moderate DVC resorts, and Legacy DVC points only work @ Legacy DVC resorts. There are just too many obstacles to overcome by lumping the two worlds together, and I think the outcome of doing so brings you to critical mass.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I'm in the "Moderate DVC ain't happenin' " camp, but if it did.... I think the only way that it "floats" is if they draw a line in the sand and create a separate system altogether. In other words, moderate DVC points only work @ moderate DVC resorts, and Legacy DVC points only work @ Legacy DVC resorts. There are just too many obstacles to overcome by lumping the two worlds together, and I think the outcome of doing so brings you to critical mass.

With you on this...it's the only way you serve two masters and keep schlepping points at the pace they'll want.

 

[skier_pete]

I predict CBV to be a lower cost per point and lower points needed for rooms. Remember people can still get on a waitlist for places like BLT and pay high per point for a prime location.

The ONLY way this happens is if they set up a second level of DVC...

In other words, moderate DVC points only work @ moderate DVC resorts, and Legacy DVC points only work @ Legacy DVC resorts.

...like that. And I just don't know that they would do it. Perhaps they do though - and "re-boot" the system.

As I said earlier - let's see what happens at the WLV 2.0 - by @ParkHoppers logic, the price of new DVC should peel back slightly there, because it certainly isn't as desirable as the Poly or VGF.

 

[EllieBride]

That thing was old, moldy, and designed by Mike Brady

Thanks for the laugh! I needed that!

 

[LAS2AMS]

I'm in the "Moderate DVC ain't happenin' " camp, but if it did.... I think the only way that it "floats" is if they draw a line in the sand and create a separate system altogether. In other words, moderate DVC points only work @ moderate DVC resorts, and Legacy DVC points only work @ Legacy DVC resorts. There are just too many obstacles to overcome by lumping the two worlds together, and I think the outcome of doing so brings you to critical mass.

There's no way they'll do this; if they do build a moderate DVC, the cost per point will be similar to that of the other DVC resorts, but they'll change less points per night's stay. This will effectively lower the buy-in, since most people buy enough points for a week's stay -- logically, this is a given. The only question is whether Disney would choose to expand the fence for CBR owners for others booking into their resort from 7 months to 3, 4 or 5 months. I say this only because there's a large faction of people who cannot finalize vacations plans until months before departure; for DVC members with large points balances, a "cheap" long weekend or two at the CBR will be tempting, and thus the lack of availability could become a deterrent to Disney's ability to sell additional points to CBR members as well as attract new ones.

That said, odds are Disney will keep the program the same, just offering lower per-night cost for the CBR.

 

[Andrew015]

There's no way they'll do this; if they do build a moderate DVC, the cost per point will be similar to that of the other DVC resorts, but they'll change less points per night's stay. This will effectively lower the buy-in, since most people buy enough points for a week's stay -- logically, this is a given.

DVC's success has hinged largely on a very calculated value proposition: Very steep buy-in cost which is offset by a semi-reasonable pay-back period (depending on who you talk to) that exists under the right circumstances (i.e. if you visit X number of times for Y length of stay in deluxe accommodations). The only tinkering that has been done to this formula over the years has been increasing the buy-in cost to the point that the payback period has become questionable (and consequently, raising rack rates to continue making DVC seem like a "value"). What you are proposing is an abrupt change in direction that would offer a more reasonable buy-in and corresponding pay-back period. Would it sell like hotcakes? Absolutely. However, it would decimate sales of any current/future deluxe resort.

I wouldn't rule this out somewhere down the line. Heck - it would be a great hedge against another economic collapse (now might not be a bad time to plant that seed). I just think there is too much "milking" of the deluxes to be done first before we see something like this from the current leadership.

 

[AnnaKat]

This is why they won't want to have a resort they sell at a lower point cost - they won't want people buying $120 points at CBV and then staying at high price properties therefore devaluing them. Points will still cost $175 - or likely $200 by then. IF they do it, it would be that the new resort would have a lower per night cost - which would in fact more than likely induce the opposite effect. Owners at this property generally wouldn't own enough points for stays at the nicer properties, but folks at the more expensive properties would try and stretch their points for longer stays buy booking here.

Yep, if the price per weekday night were like only 6 points, we could stretch our 100 points. Adding 4 week nights @ 24 points, using the One Time Use Points purchase provision would afford us 4 more studio DVC nights for a mere $90 per night!

We already primarily stay value studio(Jambo), so a less than std-sized studio is what we're used to.
We wouldn't like it if they say left the little kitchenette out of the moderate-like CBR studios, though.
We are in the minority of current owners, I assume, with only 100 points, and specifically purchased to stay 9-10 nights in an AKV value studio.

 

[gmboy95]

Just another reosrt i can stay in with the points i paid $70 for, and feel like i am getting the greatest deal ever as people fall over each other to drop north of $150!!!

 

[LAS2AMS]

DVC's success has hinged largely on a very calculated value proposition: Very steep buy-in cost which is offset by a semi-reasonable pay-back period (depending on who you talk to) that exists under the right circumstances (i.e. if you visit X number of times for Y length of stay in deluxe accommodations). The only tinkering that has been done to this formula over the years has been increasing the buy-in cost to the point that the payback period has become questionable (and consequently, raising rack rates to continue making DVC seem like a "value"). What you are proposing is an abrupt change in direction that would offer a more reasonable buy-in and corresponding pay-back period. Would it sell like hotcakes? Absolutely. However, it would decimate sales of any current/future deluxe resort.

I wouldn't rule this out somewhere down the line. Heck - it would be a great hedge against another economic collapse (now might not be a bad time to plant that seed). I just think there is too much "milking" of the deluxe to be done first before we see something like this from the current leadership.

I'm not certain where your logic or numbers are coming from. The moderate resorts are typically priced at less than half that of the deluxe resorts. If the price per point was about the same as that of the deluxe resorts, but rooms averaged 1/3 fewer points per night -- which is reasonable given that the accommodations and amenities of new DVC villas at a CBR resort would be superior to those of the standard guest rooms -- the payback period would be better on deluxe resorts, not the moderate resorts. Ultimately, it's simply a marketing opportunity to offer a lower buy-in cost but most people will ultimately purchase additional points. Disney wins no matter what.

 

[Andrew015]

Just another reosrt i can stay in with the points i paid $70 for, and feel like i am getting the greatest deal ever as people fall over each other to drop north of $150!!!

The problem is... I don't think anyone is "falling over each other" to spend the $150+/pt (or at least not at a rate that is acceptable to the Bean Counters). The Poly was projected to sell out in record fashion, but took much longer than anyone anticipated. As mentioned above, they're really reaching with the current pricing structure - to the point that they might have done themselves harm. Moderate DVC seemingly makes sense in that it would offer a more cost-effective solution, but as outlined above - it would completely undermine the legacy program on a number of levels. Hence, the reason I feel that it's a non-starter.