RustManFan
devoted to all things Disney!!
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2000
- Messages
- 20,988
I would like to see a moderate built (not DVC) with more rooms that hold larger families. POR and CBR existing rooms are tight with 5! And I also don't mean suites
A 350% increase isn't "reasonable" - unless you have underpriced your initial product. If I create a new form of footwear and sell it for $45 a pair, and it becomes an instant hit and is massively in demand, but I can't possibly keep up with demand, one option is for me to raise my price until demand decreases. If I raise it to $150 a pair in the next two years it might not be "reasonable" but if I am still selling out my factory - what would really stop me from doing it.
It's no different then the argument for MNSSHP - they've gone up 300% in less than 10 years while not improving the product one bit - yet they are selling out more parties than there were 10 years ago. You and I have both argued that the parties are now a complete rip-off and not worth the money - yet people keep going. So obviously enough people think the price increase is "reasonable".
You also have to remember, most people new to DVC don't come in going "Oh it used to be $90 a point and now its $168 a point, that's bad." They are limiting who they can market to no different than they are limiting many other things. But it keeps working.
Foresight be damned these days - it works and its been working - why stop now?
I would like to see a moderate built (not DVC) with more rooms that hold larger families. POR and CBR existing rooms are tight with 5! And I also don't mean suites
I'll answer this one...
They've stressed/overextended the market that can or will buy in the first place...
I'm gonna say "look at poly" again. 5 years to sell there? A real possibility and a real failure as well.
I know you said you got these reasons from the horses mouth, but it really doesn't make sense that these were the initial objectives. In the initial years of DVC it had no where near the growth that it did in subsequent years. In fact, although it supports reason 3, the Vero and Hilton Head locations do nothing to support 1 and 2. In the beginning they didn't really promote it at all, thus the eventual slogan "Disney's Best Kept Secret".Agreed...
Now here's the real nuts of it...
DVC was designed (these are the horse's mouth facts...not supposition) to do a couple main things:
1. Guarantee repeat, loyal customers
2. Insulate the parks from downturns in business due to external factors
3. Grow the market/expand the geographic reach of Disney destinations.
So here's what that chart shows: they're failing on number #2 Bigtime and some on #1.
If sales are volatile...it doesn't do what it needs to.
It's the problem with the price increases...conversion to "quick strike" just like the rest of the Igerian strategies. When you have no concern for the future...you do stupid things.
The reckoning is coming. At these point costs...we are gonna see massive default/dump during an economic slide.
Who was it that said that they felt most people "stretch" when they buy DVC? Get caught up in the moment.
Completely agree...all you have to do is hang around the sales office for a few hours or eavesdrop on conversations at the pool to confirm that.
"Why not? Only live twice!"
Better seal up the bottom of the ship...Incase it starts to sink or burns.
To me using the Poly as any example for a DVC discussion is not quite fair. Correct me if I,m wrong but it is the only DVC property that doesn't have one and two bedrooms. That is a big strike against the Poly DVC. Not to mention how many points it cost for their studio. Second to VGF I believe and the bungalows cost more than a BLT Grand Villa. Taking these points into consideration I am not surprised at all the Poly has and will take longer to sell out. As far as DVC is concerned is it a complete outlier.
On one hand...I concede your point. Lack of one and twos changes the dynamic. Of
Course...part of that was to correct to the problem with no studios at the grand...an over reach - but reasonable. And the fact a retrofit of 1969 buildings doesn't allow anything else.
On the other hand...since it was the poly...if it were priced right...they should have sold like wildfire. Hell - I woulda bought an add on.
But they are $30 a point overpriced.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding your statement but there are studios at both the GFV and GCV. Right?
I think he's saying there's no dedicated studios. At current DVC prices contracts are sold as much smaller, and buyer tend to predominantly want studios. However, at VGF they didn't put in any dedicated studios, and for that reason they have problems with owners there not even being able to get studios at 11 months. Part of the Poly going to all studios was to compensate for what they did there - the other part is that they were using existing buildings that were built modularly, so you couldn't easily combined two rooms into a 1- or 2-bedroom unit. The result is an all studio resort except for a few totally overpriced bungalows that almost no-one can afford to stay in.
@lockedoutlogic is probably also right about the price - for $30 less they could probably have sold the whole place out in 18 months. Which again is why I think they don't WANT or need to sell it that fast.
Sorry if I am a little thick on not understanding no dedicated studios at GFV but are you saying I can't just get a single studio there. The points chart made me think I could.
Edit: just looked it up and all the studios are part of a lock off so it is very hard to get one at 7 months but I could get one at the 11 month window. Correct? IMO it is hard to get any room at GFV at the 7 month window due to it being such a small resort so not sure how you and logics reasonIng on this is accurate. Like logic said due to the structure of the Poly they really could not build one and two bedrooms there anyway. So that seems to be the reason behind only studios and not the situation at GFV. How would making studios at the Poly help with the lack of availability at GFV? It is a completely different resort. People who like the GF might have different taste and not like the POLY at all. Plus there are a lot of studios at BLT to choose from. But again one who wants to stay at GFV might not like BLT or Poly or any other resort for that matter.
The main, consistent complaint at gf has been limited access to studios
I didn't explain myself well. Because points were so expensive by the time it went on sale, a higher percentage of owners there wants studios. So the studios there at prime DVC season (Oct-Dec) are so in demand that they book up at 11 months, and many owners were very upset that they could not get in at 11 months. Yes there are studios, but only ones that are part of lock offs, so the quantity is relatively low. Again, by Disney increasing point price so quickly, more owners buying smaller contracts. Getting a 1-bedroom there isn't so hard, but studio is very difficult even as an owner. No other resort really has that problem, not even BCV during food and wine.
You are going to have to break down my post with a little more detail Logic. This is literally the least detailed post you have ever posted. If Poly couldnt build 1 and 2 bedroom units due to building structure than that is why they went with all studios IMO. GF problems had nothing to do with it.
It is convenient how it worked out though...problems getting gf point owners into the GF...300 studios pop up an 8 iron away at the second most expensive hotel that is nearly connected...
Not saying that was the main reason...but a convenient side effect.
In order for me to assess that as a 100% coincidence...I would first have to believe in coincidence.
Again if all the Poly could build was studios and bungalows due to the buildings structure than that is all they could build, Hence that is all people could get at Poly. IMO the issues of getting a studio at GFV had nothing to do with what they built at the Poly. They built what they could at the Poly. That's it. Just because a studio is in the resort next to the GFV doesn't mean it is subsutute for staying at the GFV. People like what they like. Be it the GF or the Poly.
@ParkHoppers - The fact is though - they easily COULD have chosen to build more than just studios. Think back a few years to when they built BLT. They chose to knock down an entire wing of an existing hotel to build BLT. However, at the time prices were $135 per point. Even at that time contract sizes were shrinking. By the time of VGF and $160 points, more and more people were buying smaller contract..which is where the problem came from. So when they decided to convert a portion of the Poly to DVC, it was an easy decision to rather than do some serious re-construction, they could simply build all studios. Making adjoining rooms for people that want more space, and without kitchens it reduces maintenance fees.
So don't fool yourself into thinking that the existing buildings were the ONLY reason they built studios. It was a very purposeful move. Don't be surprised if there is a good number more of studios at the new WLVs as well.
Other than the cabins they are building near the water the rest of the rooms will likely be studios as they are converting existing WL rooms into DVC rooms. Sure they could make one and possibly two bedrooms but I think that's harder to do with existing rooms.And you don't fool yourself into thinking VWL will be mostly studios as the lack of 1 and 2 bedrooms at the Poly is what I think is the main reason it will take so long to sell out. They made a mistake at Poly IMO. And DVC might now know this. Back to small contracts for my close. When we bought a small direct contract at BLT we already knew in the future when we could afford it we would buy more points so we could go from a studio to a 1 or 2 bedroom. So for us and I,m sure many others a resort only offering studios and bungalows would be a turn off to buying there.
Other than the cabins they are building near the water the rest of the rooms will likely be studios as they are converting existing WL rooms into DVC rooms. Sure they could make one and possibly two bedrooms but I think that's harder to do with existing rooms.
I can agree that maybe DVC made studios partly because of people buying smaller contracts but many people plan or just end up buying more points over time. And is there real data to back up people buying smaller contracts. And not funny math that can be twisted. Maybe people are buying multiple smaller contracts at different resorts only to combine the points at 7 month window. Any data on that? I can agree that DVC didn't want to make major changes to the Poly so they could build 1 and 2 bedrooms. We know this is just about spending more money for them. I still can't agree the studios at Poly were because of lack of availability at GFV. The type of people that frequent these resorts and their taste could be very different.
And you don't fool yourself into thinking VWL will be mostly studios as the lack of 1 and 2 bedrooms at the Poly is what I think is the main reason it will take so long to sell out. They made a mistake at Poly IMO. And DVC might now know this. Back to small contracts for my close. When we bought a small direct contract at BLT we already knew in the future when we could afford it we would buy more points so we could go from a studio to a 1 or 2 bedroom. So for us and I,m sure many others a resort only offering studios and bungalows would be a turn off to buying there.
Other than the cabins they are building near the water the rest of the rooms will likely be studios as they are converting existing WL rooms into DVC rooms. Sure they could make one and possibly two bedrooms but I think that's harder to do with existing rooms.
Very possible...
But remember how the structure was built at the poly...the stress points were all uniform and closet laid out...from what I hear...they can do more complete/open guts at wilderness...meaning more options. I could see lots of ones and studios to satisfy one, two and studios based on need/flex.