DVC must stop rentals.....

[CaptainAmerica]

I'm going to quote you out of order to arrange my thoughts with your relevant points.

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.

I think member psychology masks this problem because people are going to book something just to book something, even if it's not what they want. Dissatisfaction with a points chart has to be pretty darn severe before people are willing to dump their points into RCI/II or literally let them expire rather than booking something.

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.

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.

I don't think we're saying anything different, mine is just the more aggressive posture. You don't like rooms that book seconds within 11 months. What about rooms that book up a few hours within 11 months? A few days? Rooms that always book up at 10 months? At some point, I just feel like "X rooms are extremely difficult to book and Y rooms are extremely easy to book" is the very definition of imbalanced demand, we're just debating degree.

 

[Brian Noble]

You don't like rooms that book seconds within 11 months. What about rooms that book up a few hours within 11 months? A few days? Rooms that always book up at 10 months?

I'm okay with all of these. They represent imbalance (assuming other categories last much longer) but they aren't necessarily problems that need to be corrected. I'm using the two endpoints (breakage/instantaneous booking) because they represent the failure points of the reservation system.

Breakage is a problem because it represents owned points that cannot be used. Once that happens, the system is out of balance. A certain amount of that is tolerable, because some owners let their points expire for one reason or another. But, if it happens consistently, it threatens to leave owners who want to travel unable to, because there are too many points chasing too few remaining rooms. (The fact that DVC has many overlapping UYs probably hides this as well, but I haven't thought carefully about that). This "system out of balance" idea is the same motivation behind the COVID-inspired 50% borrowing limitation.

Instantaneous booking is a problem because it takes the possibility of getting a reservation out of the hands of a Member, and places it in the realm of random chance. That's not as serious a problem for DVC as breakage, but it arguably is still a problem---if it happens often enough, your system runs the risk of developing a bad reputation and that makes it harder to sell points. There's also a basic fairness to it. When an owner who does everything in their power to get a reservation can't get one, that seems to be qualitatively different from an owner who could have done more, but didn't.

And that's also why I am okay with the rest of the range, up to and including mere hours after reservations open. An owner who wants that reservation but missed it could have done more, but they didn't. For example our OP, who was trying to make a reservation at six months, could have done more. So, while it is a bummer they were unable to easily get the reservation they wanted, they have some responsibility even though this always worked in the past.

As a side-effect, if DVC solved most instantaneous booking problems, they would also solve walking---because walking only matters in situations where booking right when things open is uncertain. Alternatively one could say that the possibility of walking means that instantaneous booking isn't a problem, because the owner who wants that room could have started walking earlier; they could have done more. That would be consistent with my position in some ways, but it is not one I would take. I will have to think about why (and in the process, decide if I would change my mind about that.)

 

[crisi]

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.

Way back when they were announced I said the club rooms were a huge mistake due to balancing issues. Someone once talked about putting in honeymoon suites in the VGF, and those would be a huge mistake for the same reason. So were the small number of value rooms at VAKL. I had really thought that DVC had learned their lesson with BWV standard view - but its been decades since the standard view point structure created a highly unequal demand that has had members doing dances at eleven months (anyone remember calling day by day for standard view rooms fifteen years ago?) but instead they have doubled down on the model with the ridiculously small categories at VAKL, the various room types at BLT, and the tower studios at RIV.

Had they had interest in balance, they wouldn't have ever made the BWV Standard View "mistake" again. They knew it was an issue twenty years ago. They knew studios were a problem twenty years ago. They knew Fall was an issue 20 years ago. And they are making slight adjustments in the name of balance, but they won't ever achieve, nor should they, a day when one bedrooms book at the same rate as studios and Grand Villas.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Way back when they were announced I said the club rooms were a huge mistake due to balancing issues. Someone once talked about putting in honeymoon suites in the VGF, and those would be a huge mistake for the same reason. So were the small number of value rooms at VAKL. I had really thought that DVC had learned their lesson with BWV standard view - but its been decades since the standard view point structure created a highly unequal demand that has had members doing dances at eleven months (anyone remember calling day by day for standard view rooms fifteen years ago?) but instead they have doubled down on the model with the ridiculously small categories at VAKL, the various room types at BLT, and the tower studios at RIV.

I feel pretty strongly that AKV Value and AVK Standard should be priced the same, or within one point of each other. Yep, Value is smaller, guaranteed, but you also have a 40% shot at a "free" Savanna View. Feeling lucky, punk?

Had they had interest in balance, they wouldn't have ever made the BWV Standard View "mistake" again.

This isn't about what they have an interest in, it's about what they're legally obligated to do.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

I think we just see it differently. Balancing demand IMO means that at 11 months, as much as possible, all rooms can be booked by as many owners who want them. Your view is quite different.

So, those that want studios should be able to get one at 11 months year round as best they can...or whatever room size they want.

When any room size is gone in minutes in December but not in June, then they need to adjust.…Which is why we see seeing the shifts we have in the past 3 years of charts. But, early December will always be more popular than summer and only so much shifting can happen and keep the resort within total points.

Since almost every resort can be booked at 11 months in every room size for pretty much every day of the year, then yeah, it’s balanced well for a first come, first serve system.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I think we just see it differently. Balancing demand means that at 11 months, as much as possible, all rooms can be booked by as many owners who want them.

So, those that want studios should be able to get one at 11 months year round as best they can...or whatever room size they want.

When any room size is gone in minutes in December but not in June, then they need to adjust.…as best as can happen. Which is why we see seeing the shifts we have in the past 3 years of charts.

Since almost every resort can be booked at 11 months in every room size for pretty much every day of the year, then yeah, it’s balanced well for a first come, first serve system.

Setting aside non-owners, since I know you think they're a non-factor in this analysis...

Do you not think it's a problem that some rooms are always available at 8 months and other rooms are never available at 8 months and that they're always the exact same rooms?

The home resort window is supposed to mean "if you book before non-owners, you're pretty much fine, within reason." You should never have to "rope drop" the 11 month window to get a Studio.

 

[Sandisw]

Setting aside non-owners, since I know you think they're a non-factor in this analysis...

Do you not think it's a problem that some rooms are always available at 8 months and other rooms are never available at 8 months and that they're always the exact same rooms?

The home resort window is supposed to mean "if you book before non-owners, you're pretty much fine, within reason." You should never have to "rope drop" the 11 month window to get a Studio.

I do think it is fine because for me, first come, first serve means that you have the same shot as everyone else when booking opens. Right now, that is 11 months out.

For example, RIV SV rooms go fast…but PV last longer because there are more of them…if someone wants those they need to log in right at 11 months...if they don’t, then they risk not being in one, I certainly do not feel I should have to spend more points to book one so another owner can have more time to snap one up.

But, if you log on at 11 months any day of the year, you should be able to book something for your trip.

Nothing guarantees us anything other than we can use our points to book something every year…its the nature of the system and like I have shared, it pretty much works.

We are also only guaranteed a one month booking advantage but are currently have 4. That could be changed too if they wanted it if home resort owners want more time to have exclusive rights to rooms.

 

[jo-jo]

For the last 5 or 6 years, we haven't been able to get a split stay at BLT/BCV or BWV....This year we were set up 5 night BLT lake view studio /6 nights SSR studio. I found two more nights at BLT and thought that was it.This is the 2 weeks past Thanksgiving. Really busy time.


For all of the issues mention in this thread, in the last two weeks, I had gotten 2 nights standard view BLT and 2 nights 1 bedroom BWV. I had a wait list in for one night lake view studio and 1 night 1 bed BWV. They were both filled today. Also with stalking, I got two more one night stays at BWV. So now we have our split stay of BLT/BWV.

We planned to bring our oldest grand daughter for the last part. Next year she goes off to college.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I do think it is fine because for me, first come, first serve means that you have the same shot as everyone else when booking opens. Right now, that is 11 months out.

For example, RIV SV rooms go fast…but PV last longer because there are more of them…if someone wants those they need to log in right at 11 months...if they don’t, then they risk not being in one, I certainly do not feel I should have to spend more points to book one so another owner can have more time to snap one up.

That's the very definition of a demand imbalance. I'm not saying there's anything morally wrong with it, I'm saying it's imbalanced, which is what Disney is tasked to correct per contract.

I also think it's just factually incorrect. RIV SV doesn't go fast because there are more PV, RIV SV goes fast because members are points-misers. If there were the exact same number of SV and PV, SV would still sell out first because they're under-pointed relative to PV.

 

[Sandisw]

That's the very definition of a demand imbalance. I'm not saying there's anything morally wrong with it, I'm saying it's imbalanced, which is what Disney is tasked to correct per contract.

I also think it's just factually incorrect. RIV SV doesn't go fast because there are more PV, RIV SV goes fast because members are points-misers. If there were the exact same number of SV and PV, SV would still sell out first because they're under-pointed relative to PV.

Actually it’s not unbalanced because SV rooms go equally as fast all year long. That to me means DVC is doing its job in setting SV charts.

Sorry, but we just don’t agree on what it means to have a first come first serve system when it comes to booking each type of room.

DVC should balance demand for owners so that booking at 11 months is similar year round….for each room size and view in its own category….

With that, nothing more than I can say.

 

[wnielsen1]

I think if people didn't like the changes to the 2023 points charts, I think they are really not going to like the changes to the 2024 points charts.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Actually it’s not unbalanced because SV rooms go equally as fast all year long. That to me means DVC is doing its job in setting SV charts.

There is no such thing as SV charts. There are RIV charts, which include all the variables. You can't zoom in on Standard View Studios and conclude that Standard View Studios need only be balanced against themselves.

Sorry, but we just don’t agree on what it means to have a first come first serve system when it comes to booking each type of room.

It's not a first come first serve system! I am 100% certain that I'm going to Aulani in April 2024. I own Aulani. But I can't book it. Because it's not a first come, first served system.

for each room size and view in its own category….

How do you explain the creation of new categories out of thin air, e.g. SSR Preferred?

 

[Sandisw]

There is no such thing as SV charts. There are RIV charts, which include all the variables. You can't zoom in on Standard View Studios and conclude that Standard View Studios need only be balanced against themselves.


It's not a first come first serve system! I am 100% certain that I'm going to Aulani in April 2024. I own Aulani. But I can't book it. Because it's not a first come, first served system.


How do you explain the creation of new categories out of thin air, e.g. SSR Preferred?

it is first come first serve for booking at 11 months. No idea what else you mean.

Of course they didn’t have to make categories but they did. And as long as they do, then demand is based on that. That is my definition of demand. Could they eliminate and make no views? Legally, yes, but they did it because they don’t feel the views are equal enough to charge the same points and separated them based on that.

SSR split because of requests..whether that was a legal move or not is in question..so they fixed it because of complaints from people not getting those requests.

Nothing I can say is going to match what you think it means for demand balancing.

Like I said, the POS defines clearly the max reallocation chart that can happen. And that indeed defines categories in certain ways.

 

[Brian Noble]

I'm saying it's imbalanced, which is what Disney is tasked to correct per contract.

I'm coming back to this, because I'm not sure that's what the contract says.

I can't recall (and don't have at my fingertips) the precise language, but my recollection is that the agreement is not worded quite this strongly. In particular, I don't recall that it obligates DVCMC to remove imbalances, only that they are allowed to.

 

[wnielsen1]

 

[CaptainAmerica]

View attachment 669865

So not only are they obligated to balance demand, but they're obligated to balance demand OUTSIDE the home resort booking window. Hoooooo boy. Imagine that.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

So not only are they obligated to balance demand, but they're obligated to balance demand OUTSIDE the home resort booking window. Hoooooo boy. Imagine that.

How would that even work?

 

[Sandisw]

So not only are they obligated to balance demand, but they're obligated to balance demand OUTSIDE the home resort booking window. Hoooooo boy. Imagine that.

And that could be by making non home resort point charts that charge more than for home resort owners.

 

[wnielsen1]

And that could be by making non home resort point charts that charge more than for home resort owners.

It's possible, although they still have to keep everything in balance because as soon as they start creating more breakage, they are acting in the best interests of the mothership and not the membership.

 

[Sandisw]

It's possible, although they still have to keep everything in balance because as soon as they start creating more breakage, they are acting in the best interests of the mothership and not the membership.

There is no requirement for trades to stay in balance. That is only for home resort bookings.

That is why they are two separate divisions.. DVC handles the rules for home resort bookings and are responsible for the charts to match against points sold.

BVTC is in charge of trades and they have the right to set rules for that. It doesn’t even need to be the same for each resort.

For example, they can charge fees to trade. They can make VGF have a non home resort chart that requires non owners to use more points because it books faster than say SSR.

Each uses its own data. So what DVC does for demand for home resort booking is not what BVTC would be looking at.

They have never created new charts because as a whole most things balance in the end. Less expensive rooms book faster than more expensive ones.

The big 3 will always have more rooms left because the volume is larger. A resort with 50 studios is going to sell faster than a resort that has 150.

ETA: That balancing also has to take into account the rules that are stated in the membership agreement too, which does put limits on things.