DVC plans to target commercial renters

[Sandisw]

I honestly don’t care what others do or don’t.

Why do members care about third party confirmed reservations? The owners there have the same opportunities like the rest of us. So what if they make money on the reservations.

I know there are a lot of renting going on. It’s never impacted me, as I’ve been able to book what I wanted.

I don’t see walking as a problem, again I’ve been able to get what I want.

Maybe some or a lot of people complain because they don’t get the dates or resort in the first go. Frankly, to me it’s part of the planning process and it’s started to be sort or fun when I start to book my dates.

This is where I land. I am indifferent to it because I believe that it’s built in to understanding and the way the product works.

Can only worry about me. I have chosen to give up worrying about the least expensive room first try…I spend time stalking and other things to get what I want.

I always look at what is and is not allowed and I have said many times, I don’t think or want DVC to making rules that have subjective nature to them and that is why I’m not bothered by walking. That has to deal with intent and that’s a personal choice.

There are plenty of owners who will book and hold rooms they may not end up using…I do it all the time because I simply don’t know all my plans at 11 months.

I just have a very hard time seeing how having a restrictive product in anyway is better than a flexible one with its pitfalls.

Obviously, I hope DVC ends up valuing flexibility over walking when and if they decide to update the rules.

 

[MICKIMINI]

It would certainly be the easiest to implement, as the rules are already published and the lottery had been implemented previously.

As a DVC "old timer" I do indeed remember the lottery!

 

[Sandisw]

I like his idea too. Combine it with instant waitlists, so commercial renters couldn’t stalk for openings in certain room categories, and I think it would go a long way to address the issue.

I also think Disney could skip all the rule changes to booking a reservation and just send warnings and threaten to ban the biggest and clearest examples of commercial renters from all the non-home resort Disney property (including the parks). They have massive leeway to do this—it doesn’t impact the offending owners properties rights and wouldn’t be bad optics like cancelling reservations would be.

I also think a lot more people would have a problem with the issue if they knew it existed—my guess is that lots of owners have felt it’s harder for them to book some rooms and dates they used to not have a big problem getting.

Just remember, even if the large spec renters go away, unless DVC prohibits all of them…you will still see them.

Right now, if I have to rent, I’m grabbing the most popular room at RIV and VGF and offering it confirmed…until such time that DVC says that isn’t allowed.

But, one rental, even confirmed, as long as it is doesn’t mean it’s commercial.

Sure, there are owners out there who advertise a lot…and they very well may be an owner on the membership of all of them…but for all you know, the owner advertising is doing it for others…similar to what a broker is doing.

May not be likely and share with DVc if you want but they stated they know what is happening on memberships.

It comes down to DVC deciding how to define what is and is not acceptable within the umbrella of owners having the right to rent.

We all need to be prepared that what they decide may not be as strict…or is stricter,,, then what ideas people have.

 

[JOLT]

As a DVC "old timer" I do indeed remember the lottery!

I remember the lottery for Christmas at OKW.

 

[Brian Noble]

Even if mega renters and walking didn’t exist then most owners still wouldn’t get those hard to get resort view rooms (renamed today) at BWV and value rooms. Owners would soon start whining about something else.

Having watched this play out in Wyndham over the last many years (a) it can make a meaningful difference in availability for hard-to-get reservations and (b) many owners "feel better" about other owners getting the time vs. non-owners renting it.

Don't underestimate the importance of "owners feeling better," because current owners are a significant source of future sales.

 

[Chuck S]

Also remember, years ago there was a broker who worked by either you adding them as an associate to your account, or simply used your DVC Login to book rooms.

I remember the lottery for Christmas at OKW.

Yep, and I bet it was a pain for both Member Services and Members. I never participated in the lottery because I rarely travel at actual Christmas. If I want to see the Christmas stuff,I do early December and I get a one bedroom, even just for me.

 

[Brian Noble]

I am a big advocate of copying changes made by others that have worked and had time for people to challenge the changes via litigation and been found legal to do.

This doesn't necessarily translate from Wyndham to Disney. It may depend on exactly how the governing documents are worded.

(Note that I don't think this is a problem, but I also am not an expert who has combed over both with a fine-toothed comb.)

 

[VGCgroupie]

Owners using their points for commercial purposes are a different issue from companies that facilitate rentals by handling communication between renters and owners. If DVC decides to enforce rules against commercial renting, they would impose penalties on the owners, who would not be "unwitting" -- they would know they have been making money by renting points beyond their personal needs. (That's not to say DVC couldn't also go after the companies, but that's a different issue.)

Someone renting through one of those companies, or through a private transaction, would have no way of knowing how many other rentals the owner has made. It would not be fair to people who made good-faith rental reservations to have those reservations cancelled.

The easiest way to avoid this problem would be to say that someone who is determined to be a commercial renter in violation of the rules would be unable to make future reservations in anyone else's name (maybe for the rest of the use year or some other time period) but that reservations made previously may stay in place.

This above in bold. Although there is a broker or 2 that heavily commercially rent for themselves and also facilitate between owner/renter. I have no problem with companies that facilitate between owner/renter so I hope that isnt effected by rule changes.

The reason that BWV standard and AKV value are frequently mentioned is usually not because are misguided enough to think those categories would not be hard under any circumstance, rather that they make very clear examples at how egregious the effect of spec rentals can be. When as many as 14+ value studios show up for ONE date, and there are 20 or less of that room… it’s a concise example.

This right here is a perfect example of why commercial renting is bad for normal owners. I can’t fathom why someone who doesn’t commercially rent would defend it.

I honestly don’t care what others do or don’t.

Why do members care about third party confirmed reservations? The owners there have the same opportunities like the rest of us. So what if they make money on the reservations.

I know there are a lot of renting going on. It’s never impacted me, as I’ve been able to book what I wanted.

I don’t see walking as a problem, again I’ve been able to get what I want.

Maybe some or a lot of people complain because they don’t get the dates or resort in the first go. Frankly, to me it’s part of the planning process and it’s started to be sort or fun when I start to book my dates.

Recently there were members who wanted to book new Poly rooms, they tried and much to their dismay sold out, then they see those dates they wanted for a family trip being commercially rented out within the hour. THIS is why people care.

 

[MICKIMINI]

I kind of see a negative impact for people who would want to book one or two day rental reservations. Like I said earlier, I rented just under 100 points a few years ago, for one or two noght to fill in reservations for existing members. Those 100 points were used over 6 one to two night reservations, all within the 7 month window.

Now, it could work, IF they ease up on the one transfer per year limit, allowing members multiple small transfers to other members, OR if they allowed more rentals/unaccompanied guests outside the home resort priority window.

I like the idea of being able to do multiple transfers between owners. Owners with multiple contracts have an advantage being able to transfer between their own contracts with no limit that I know of. I never did get a straight answer as to calendar or UY.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Recently there were members who wanted to book new Poly rooms, they tried and much to their dismay sold out, then they see those dates they wanted for a family trip being commercially rented out within the hour. THIS is why people care.

If those particular owners wanted a poly room, then they should have bought some points at poly.

If they wanted to go they should have booked at their home resort. Exchanging into poly is not guaranteed but a possibility if there is available inventory.

I do however understand the frustration. If I want to stay at poly I can try to exchange in at 7 months. That should never be my first choice because I don’t know if I’ll get the reservation or not.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I like the idea of being able to do multiple transfers between owners. Owners with multiple contracts have an advantage being able to transfer between their own contracts with no limit that I know of. I never did get a straight answer as to calendar or UY.

It’s currently 1 time per UY. Either in or out, to/from another member.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Having watched this play out in Wyndham over the last many years (a) it can make a meaningful difference in availability for hard-to-get reservations and (b) many owners "feel better" about other owners getting the time vs. non-owners renting it.

Don't underestimate the importance of "owners feeling better," because current owners are a significant source of future sales.

I don’t know how popular Wyndham is or how many owners they have compared to DVC.

But with the very few value rooms being available it wouldn’t change for most owners. If ie 20 mega renters goes away then the 10.000 owners looking to book a value room will still not get them. So a change will be moot seen from their perspective.

Will it make them feel better? Maybe - but will DVC honestly make a change to make few owners feel better - or will they make a change to potentially increase revenue? If a few owners at the same time feel better then it’s great. If not DVC can say we tried to solve it but members always complain.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I think everyone is overthinking all of this. Disney knows who is commercially renting, Im sure it's very obvious. Also, commercial renters know who they are, they aren't wondering if they would fall into whatever category Disney is going to put them in. Disney isnt going to go after someone who owns 500 points and rents 300 of them, that is an insignificant amount. There are heavy hitting commercial renters, those are who will be affected by any changes imo.

 

[Chuck S]

Recently there were members who wanted to book new Poly rooms, they tried and much to their dismay sold out, then they see those dates they wanted for a family trip being commercially rented out within the hour. THIS is why people care.

Again, a lottery for rooms at a new resort for the first 3 months may solve that issue, right? Of course, there's still no guarantee a home resort member would get the reservation they want, though.

In truth, most new resorts sell out when they open, and that is to Home Resort members during the priority window.

 

[Brian Noble]

I don’t know how popular Wyndham is or how many owners they have compared to DVC.

Significantly larger (about 2x the owner numbers, per various web summaries: 500K vs. 250K)

 

[Chuck S]

Also in question...when can DVC actually consider a rental...a rental? Is it a rental the moment an existing reservation is offered on a website? The owner can always change their mind and withdraw it, right? Is it the moment money changes hands and the reservation iss transferred into someone else's name? What if the owner stipulated that they remain the primary name on the reservation? That was happening for a while. Is it a Rental the moment the reservation is made, if the owner has no intention of staying on the reservation? Can DVC prove an intent? There are no easy answers. The best way to solve this may be 1) the lottery 2) Forbidding name a change of the lead guest if the reservation was made during the Home Resort priority timeframe.

Especially when Florida requires that we are able to rent out our rooms.

Significantly larger (about 2x the owner numbers, per various web summaries: 500K vs. 250K)

But, how many resorts do they have compared to DVC?

 

[Brian Noble]

Many many more, but many are quite a bit smaller in terms of # of rooms.

Obviously, they are not the same, and so you can all find reasons why it won't work for DVC. But it did improve owner sentiment at Wyndham among the Extremely Online people at e.g. TUG. The mega-renters had become the baba yaga, and this change (among others) was seen as curbing them.

Those others included: unilaterally cancelling reservations suspected of being commercial, and freezing related accounts. It was heavy handed. And the rank-and-file dug it.

 

[Sandisw]

This above in bold. Although there is a broker or 2 that heavily commercially rent for themselves and also facilitate between owner/renter. I have no problem with companies that facilitate between owner/renter so I hope that isnt effected by rule changes.


This right here is a perfect example of why commercial renting is bad for normal owners. I can’t fathom why someone who doesn’t commercially rent would defend it.


Recently there were members who wanted to book new Poly rooms, they tried and much to their dismay sold out, then they see those dates they wanted for a family trip being commercially rented out within the hour. THIS is why people care.

There is a difference between defending it and being indifferent to it.

I am indifferent to it but also know that DVc, and DVc alone get to define what it means in the context of DVC usage

If they want to crack down, perfect. If they want it to have a high threshold, that works too…

I am simply not bothered one way or the other in terms of how they choose to define and enforce it.

 

[Sandisw]

Just had a random thought…any thoughts on whether DVC might crack down on people transferring for money as way to combat this?

Woild there be something they could do?

 

[crisi]

Why do members care about third party confirmed reservations? The owners there have the same opportunities like the rest of us. So what if they make money on the reservations.

I care because I signed a contract. Well, honestly, I didn't - I bought resale and inherited the T&Cs from the previous owner. But I'm expected to adhere to those terms. And I expect others to adhere to those terms. One of those terms is "no commercial renting."

As someone who administers contracts for a living now, I don't think you get to decide which terms you are going to hold to and which you are not. You signed a contract. I expect you to live to that because DVCs functionality is dependent on us all upholding the terms - not "just some of us paying our dues while other people decide they don't wanna" or "some people make reservations before eleven months while others are required to wait until their contracted window opens." I expect Disney to uphold their end of the contract. AND I expect Disney to enforce their terms and conditions that they have on their membership.

If people wanted to make money off of DVC, they should have signed a different contract. Of course, they couldn't because Disney does not offer a commercial use contract. But you are only entitled to what the contract guarantees. And that does include some personal renting - but it does not include using your contract as a commercial enterprise.