DVC must stop rentals.....

[CaptainAmerica]

That is the nature of timeshares. There will be room types and times of year when getting the room you want is possible at three or four months out - one bedrooms, February, if you aren't picky about resort.

That does NOT need to be a fait accompli.

Do you agree that if Studios were 100 points and 1BR were 101 points, 1BR would be very difficult to book and Studios would be the last to go?

Do you further agree that if Studios were 30 points and 1BR were 171 points, Studios would be very difficult to book and 1BR would be the last to go?

If you agree with both of those statements, then there's an equilibrium in between where Studios and 1BR would be equally difficult to book. But DVC doesn't have the will to do what needs to be done.

 

[Brian Noble]

Some of those prices are so low they almost feel like fraud. Old Key West 1BR at $10/pt.?

Nope. He rents all the time. Totally legit. Probably some expiring points.

I will bet a mickeybar that those summer 1BR 7-night stays at OKW, SSR, and BWV with check-ins on Friday, Saturday or Sunday are either RCI or (in the case of SSR) II exchanges, and that the fine print (maybe only when you confirm the week with the landlord) includes a $190 fee paid to Disney when you check in. If they are, $10/"point" is probably a very tidy profit, though it depends a little bit on how that person is getting the exchanges, because they are spending much cheaper assets to book them than DVC points.

Those are not allowed to be rented, but that's another story. It also is not impacting Members' ability to book, because those rooms were taken out of the bookable pool and put into the exchange before this person secured them.

 

[Brian Noble]

That does NOT need to be a fait accompli.

It's hard (and maybe impossible) to get the point values exactly right. But, it's also fair to say that when it comes to studios vs. 1BRs, DVC is not even close to exactly right.

 

[Brian Noble]

DVC doesn't have the will to do what needs to be done.

Thinking more about this, there are two ways for DVC to solve the imbalance problem.

The first is to adjust point values to change demand so that it matches supply. DVC has not tried that with studios vs. 1BRs, even when they attempted to change the lockoff penalty in 2020 (which would have been the time to try it).

The second is to adjust supply to meet demand given the roughly 1:2 point values that were assigned when OKW's chart was developed. DVC has arguably tried to do that with the Poly/GFV2 conversions, but did not with CCV's, and may not with the Poly 2.

 

[crisi]

That does NOT need to be a fait accompli.

Do you agree that if Studios were 100 points and 1BR were 101 points, 1BR would be very difficult to book and Studios would be the last to go?

Do you further agree that if Studios were 30 points and 1BR were 171 points, Studios would be very difficult to book and 1BR would be the last to go?

If you agree with both of those statements, then there's an equilibrium in between where Studios and 1BR would be equally difficult to book. But DVC doesn't have the will to do what needs to be done.

You are missing the point. At some point in time, if everyone uses their points, it doesn't matter if studios are more expensive than one bedrooms - they will book up. At some point, overpriced cabanas book up. Repricing one bedrooms and studios would make studios last longer, but they won't last forever, because even with the imbalance, one bedrooms book up. Timeshares are designed to operate at capacity - change the point allocation and you will change how fast that happens, but because everything will eventually reach capacity, it won't be a long term solution. Not to mention any solution that has any significant impact won't make the membership any happier since it would increase the points of the studios - and for everyone delighted by the studios being available longer, there would be as many or more people incised that their 50 point add on no longer gets them the full five days they bought for.

(I believe one bedrooms should be less expensive and studios more expensive. I just don't think there is a point at which that solves the problem of availability for Jersey Week six months out.)

There is not a surplus in the system, so there is no way to actually solve the problem she wants solved systematically. You can solve it individually by changing your behavior. And people have - by booking early, by walking in demand rooms - in a system that operates at capacity, the people willing to do the most work and most planning are going to be the winners.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You are missing the point. At some point in time, if everyone uses their points, it doesn't matter if studios are more expensive than one bedrooms - they will book up. At some point, overpriced cabanas book up. Repricing one bedrooms and studios would make studios last longer, but they won't last forever, because even with the imbalance, one bedrooms book up. Timeshares are designed to operate at capacity - change the point allocation and you will change how fast that happens, but because everything will eventually reach capacity, it won't be a long term solution. Not to mention any solution that has any significant impact won't make the membership any happier since it would increase the points of the studios - and for everyone delighted by the studios being available longer, there would be as many or more people incised that their 50 point add on no longer gets them the full five days they bought for.

(I believe one bedrooms should be less expensive and studios more expensive. I just don't think there is a point at which that solves the problem of availability for Jersey Week six months out.)

There is not a surplus in the system, so there is no way to actually solve the problem she wants solved systematically. You can solve it individually by changing your behavior. And people have - by booking early, by walking in demand rooms - in a system that operates at capacity, the people willing to do the most work and most planning are going to be the winners.

The point is not to make it so that some things never book up, the point is to make it so that the various types of things book up at the same time, or as close to that as can reasonably be achieved.

 

[crisi]

The point is not to make it so that some things never book up, the point is to make it so that the various types of things book up at the same time, or as close to that as can reasonably be achieved.

I honestly do not think that is doable in a legal fashion. Or in one in which the majority of the members will be happy with. I think to get there the delta between one bedrooms and studios needs to be MUCH closer than people who bought enough points for studios would tolerate. And while Disney has legal obligations to balance demand, they also have a legal obligation to maintain what they sold and not pull a bait and switch which would run them afoul of commerce laws. What they sold a lot of people was that 50 points was enough - and I think they can make a case that 60 isn't a material change and can be done in the name of balance. I don't think the courts would buy that 30 years after the product was put on sale, more than halfway through the life of the contract on some of these resorts, you now need 80 points done in the name of "balance."

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I honestly do not think that is doable in a legal fashion. Or in one in which the majority of the members will be happy with. I think to get there the delta between one bedrooms and studios needs to be MUCH closer than people who bought enough points for studios would tolerate. And while Disney has legal obligations to balance demand, they also have a legal obligation to maintain what they sold and not pull a bait and switch which would run them afoul of commerce laws.

Whether members will be happy or not is irrelevant.

If the contract says "if X, then Y," and then X occurs, Disney must do Y whether members are going to ***** and moan or not.

What they sold a lot of people was that 50 points was enough - and I think they can make a case that 60 isn't a material change and can be done in the name of balance. I don't think the courts would buy that 30 years after the product was put on sale, more than halfway through the life of the contract on some of these resorts, you now need 80 points done in the name of "balance."

They need to make the change specifically because it's material, not in spite of it. You can't just laser-focus on Studios like this. 1BR are getting cheaper in this scenario. If a buyer purchased a contract solely to get a specific number of nights in a studio in the cheapest season, shame on them. They have no recourse if that changes because they never had a right to those dates at that price in the first place.

 

[Sandisw]

That does NOT need to be a fait accompli.

Do you agree that if Studios were 100 points and 1BR were 101 points, 1BR would be very difficult to book and Studios would be the last to go?

Do you further agree that if Studios were 30 points and 1BR were 171 points, Studios would be very difficult to book and 1BR would be the last to go?

If you agree with both of those statements, then there's an equilibrium in between where Studios and 1BR would be equally difficult to book. But DVC doesn't have the will to do what needs to be done.

The shifts are constrained by total points assigned to the 2 bedroom lock offs. That means any dedicated 1 bedrooms and studios are also constrained by those numbers.

They simply can not make 1 bedrooms substantially less and raise studios to equal out booking demand without compromising the difference between the two.

Each resort has a maximum point chart that would happen if there were no seasons which also guides things.

The POS also has language that guarantees you X nights in each of the rooms types per year based on what you own

For example, I believe that at RIV, for every 17 or 18 points you own..can’t remember right now..you get a night in a studio, etc. They simple can’t violate that aspect of it.
While many would love to see the 1 bedrooms less, they still offer a lot more than a studio and the charts need to reflect that.

So, it’s not about DVC wanting to but rather staying within the limits of it all. And if you watch how things play out, the 1 bedrooms at most resorts are what are there for non resort owners at 7 months, which means those who are booking in the ho e resort time period are getting the best chance at the best rooms.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The shifts are constrained by total points assigned to the 2 bedroom lock offs. That means any dedicated 1 bedrooms and studios are also constrained by those numbers.

They simply can not make 1 bedrooms substantially less and raise studios to equal out booking demand without compromising the difference between the two.

I think you're overcomplicating the algebra here. Yeah, there might be some impact that needs to flow over to the 2BR category as well, but all of these moving parks are workable. If what I was proposing was going to break the system, any adjustment would break the system. It's not as delicate of a balance as you're implying. There is play in the joints.

"There are limitations in the POS..." <--- I agree
"...and lock-offs complicate everything..." <--- I agree
"...therefore they can't really do anything." <--- Wait what?

The POS also has language that guarantees you X nights in each of the rooms types per year based on what you own

That's a ceiling on points cost, not a floor.

 

[CarolMN]

The point is not to make it so that some things never book up, the point is to make it so that the various types of things book up at the same time, or as close to that as can reasonably be achieved.

I do not agree with this at all, & I sincerely believe few others do, either. Nor do I agree that Member happiness is irrelevant.

DVC is a first come, first served system. There is no REASONABLE way to make all the villas book at approximately the same speed. To even try would disrupt the system and upset the vast majority of members.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I do not agree with this at all, & I sincerely believe few others do, either. Nor do I agree that Member happiness is irrelevant.

DVC is a first come, first served system. There is no REASONABLE way to make all the villas book at approximately the same speed. To even try would disrupt the system and upset the vast majority of members.

Then what, in your estimation, is meant by the POS language that mandates Disney to balance demand?

 

[Brian Noble]

If a buyer purchased a contract solely to get a specific number of nights in a studio in the cheapest season, shame on them.

Those of us who've been around long enough remember the Great Rebalancing when weekend points were lowered/weekday points raised significantly. The wailing and gnashing of teeth around that was significant because there were a number of Members who'd bought exactly what they needed to do a room Su-Th in a particular season.

But, it was also something that had to be done, because Members were routinely booking the weekend nights from CRO using the DVC cash discount, and weekdays with points.

I think the Maximum Reallocation numbers in the POS probably do place some constraints the relative valuations of studios vs. 1BRs, but I'm not sure exactly how.

 

[crisi]

Then what, in your estimation, is meant by the POS language that mandates Disney to balance demand?

Well, that language has been there thirty years and they haven't been sued for breach, so apparently, its what they are doing now.

 

[CarolMN]

Then what, in your estimation, is meant by the POS language that mandates Disney to balance demand?

The definition of demand.

Yours appears to be 'speed of booking'. Mine is most villas book to capacity by 60 days prior to check in with a reasonable number going to breakage. In the example @Brian Noble gave, there were a lot of unbooked Fridays and Saturdays going to breakage, and it's likely quite a few of those ended up empty (didn't get rented to the general public for cash, either).

I'm not looking to argue. It's OK with me if we don't agree, so you can have the last word if you'd like.

 

[wnielsen1]

Well, that language has been there thirty years and they haven't been sued for breach, so apparently, its what they are doing now.

They may have been threatened lately as they finally started shifting fall to more expensive seasons. Which is something that should have been done a long time ago.

 

[Sandisw]

I think you're overcomplicating the algebra here. Yeah, there might be some impact that needs to flow over to the 2BR category as well, but all of these moving parks are workable. If what I was proposing was going to break the system, any adjustment would break the system. It's not as delicate of a balance as you're implying. There is play in the joints.

"There are limitations in the POS..." <--- I agree
"...and lock-offs complicate everything..." <--- I agree
"...therefore they can't really do anything." <--- Wait what?


That's a ceiling on points cost, not a floor.

There is a floor. And locks are declared based on 2 bedrooms. So if a 2 bedroom lock off is declared as 48 points, then all equivalent rooms need to stay within that. Lock off premium amounts can not be raised…that’s what they tried in 2020 and had to retract it.

Again, while you think it’s in membership interest to have all room sizes priced so they sell out in similar times, I’d bet many do not.

They need to balance demand for the rooms and the units so getting them when booking opens is similar year round..why they are lowering summer now and increasing fall.

Sorry, but simply making major shifts in the cost of each isn’t legally possible in the way to make it do what you think it would do.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

They may have been threatened lately as they finally started shifting fall to more expensive seasons. Which is something that should have been done a long time ago.

Exactly, I think everyone is forgetting that there are members on both sides of any proposed rebalancing.

Everyone keeps saying "we can't rebalance in a way that would impact cheap-season Studios because that would make cheap-season Studio members angry." Yeah, maybe, but it'll make Summer-season 1BR members happy, so "the membership," as a whole, is no better or worse off.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

There is a floor. And locks are declared based on 2 bedrooms. So if a 2 bedroom lock off is declared as 48 points, then all equivalent rooms need to stay within that. Lock off premium amounts can not be raised…that’s what they tried in 2020 and had to retract it.

Again, while you think it’s in membership interest to have all room sizes priced so they sell out in similar times, I’d bet many do not.

They need to balance demand for the rooms and the units so getting them when booking opens is similar year round..why they are lowering summer now and increasing fall.

Sorry, but simply making major shifts in the cost of each isn’t legally possible in the way to make it do what you think it would do.

There are three different rebalancings I would like to see happen.

1. Rebalance the seasons, generally raising late Fall and early winter and lowering summer.

2. Rebalance view categories. Off the top of my head, Boardwalk View needs to be higher, Savanna View needs to be lower, Ocean View needs to be lower, most Standard Views need to be higher.

3. Raise Studios, lower 1BR a lot, lower 2BR a tiny bit, tinker with Cabins/Bungalows/Treehouses/GVs as necessary.

Your objections only apply to #3, so even if I concede that point ad arguendo, there are still other problems that I think need to be addressed that they aren't addressing.

 

[Brian Noble]

I don't think "all units book fully at the same time" is necessarily a good goal. It's a goal one could have, but it is not IMO necessary and pursuing it probably is more work than it is worth.

On the other hand, I think there are two "bad things" that are worth correcting. The first is a room category that consistently ends up in breakage. Such rooms are over-pointed, and should be lowered, and that appears to be what happened with the weekend/weekday re-balance that ticked off a lot of people.

The second is a room category that consistently books up within a few seconds of the web site opening at 11 months, because it means even people willing to plan as far in advance as possible are subject to random chance. Such rooms are under-pointed, and should be raised. There are probably some exceptions to this--maybe the AKV club-level rooms can just stay as they are because there just aren't enough of them to bother with. But, in general it strikes me that this is a situation worth correcting.

It's not clear to me whether or not DVCMC shares these as objective functions, or if they have others. They clearly have something in mind because they've been doing seasonal re-balancing for a while now.