DVC plans to target commercial renters

[nalababybear]

Once again, literally no one has suggested that renting should be eliminated.

Some here have

 

[nalababybear]

DVC has never, will never, and does not currently care about what’s good for the membership as a whole. That may be the legal jargon that they can wield as their ban hammer, but it’s not some idea that can be shaped into a coherent definition.

This issue comes down to 1 question- Does the current landscape of DVC entice me to purchase as a non member or add on as a current member?

I believe it’s better to be a renter right now, unless you are a commercially renting- whether that be a small renter with 3000 points or an LLC with a combined 100k. Some of the people in these Facebook groups have DVC renter as their profession and they are not the big names we know about.

People rent. People buy.

The direct point sales don't appear to be affected over the past months, still 1000 pts buys and riviera is positioned to sell out in 2 years already

So targeted activity at aul and akl perhaps?

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

People aren’t pushing back though against reasonable rules.

People have pushed back against some of the suggestions that we don’t see as reasonable.

Spec renting being one of them. I simply do not agree that a spec rental, by itself, falls under the umbrella of commercial. That does not spell pattern of rental activity to me which are the words of the contract.

So, no, I don’t want to see that level of definition because it does not support commercial in the context of the contract.

If I decided to rent a reservation next year and I book it first, and advertise it as such, but it’s my only one, I simply don’t see how that is different than having a renter waiting in the wings before I book. One is still one.

Same with walking…if they can change the rules to prevent walking without adding penalties to change a trip when needed, I am for it but I have yet to see a solution that isn’t worse for owners who don’t walk.

I’ve seen pushback on pretty much every suggestion made, reasonable or not. Unfortunately, reasonable is subjective. All I’m saying is they should enforce the rules they already have in place. 20 reservations (or whatever that number is) and no commercial renting. Quite a few people have already given reasonable definitions of what “commercial” is. It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that. And I’m sure multiple people will push back on that. Just the enforcement of what already exists. If you’re not commercial renting, why pushback? (Not you, you. I’m speaking of the general you)

And I don’t fully disagree with what you’ve said but if spec renting isn’t explicitly against the rules, fine, but I do believe it is being exploited, which is causing harm to the membership. They could make it like OTUP and have it so spec rentals are only allowed if it was booked after the 7mo window. Even if you booked it with the intention of using it, making it so you have to cancel and either rebook that spec rental at 7mo or use your points for a rental in another way, doesn’t impede in your ability to rent, which again, no one is trying to stop. But it does give some power back to owning for personal enjoyment and home resort priority. And before someone asks how Disney would differentiate a spec rental and a regular points rental, if you put your points for rent at 11mos and someone asks you to book something before 7mos, the renters name would be the first and only name made as lead. Spec rentals always have to have a lead change. See, this feels like a reasonable compromise to me, but I know there will never be pleasing everyone but there has to be some give and take here.

As for walking, I’m of the camp that walking is mostly a consequence of the massive growth of DVC rental culture and it will be mostly cured once the issues around renting are resolved. I just don’t agree with anyone saying that the hard to get rooms will always be impossible so shut up and don’t complain. There aren’t more BWV owners now than there were 10 years ago. But I’ve read from a few longtime owners on these boards that have said that even though it was always gone quickly, it has gotten increasingly more difficult, if not impossible, to book standard view rooms in recent years. But you’ll probably find them for rent at 10 mo and 29 days on the rental sites and FB pages. If people don’t see that as a problem, I think we’re looking at what DVC is supposed to be, as fundamentally different things.

 

[BeachClub2014]

This latest rental debate thread has been fascinating to read and experience. It's like listening to my 4-year-old granddaughter reading a Dr. Suess book aloud: the words are meaningless, but she gives it her all! It's entertaining, to say the least.

We are 45 pages into this thread, and I doubt many positions or opinions have been swayed or changed.

I fully support DVC implementing any rule modifications or clarifications to reduce the abuses to the DVC rental landscape and walking of reservations, as both have gotten out of hand. If that means that we, as owners, lose some measure of flexibility to the program as it exists today, then so be it. We only have ourselves and other owners to blame.

Whatever DVC decides to do, if anything, will likely be met with 25% of owners loving it, 25% hating it, 50% completely oblivious, and 100% of DISboarders having an opinion on why their opinion is the best opinion.

Onwards and upwards.....

 

[ShaneDJ]

There aren’t more BWV owners now than there were 10 years ago.

How do you know that?

Please provide your source.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

How do you know that?

Please provide your source.

lol I don’t think I need a source? Unless I’ve misunderstood how this works, it’s sold out so how can the membership grow for a sold out resort?…Let me amend, perhaps it grows by a couple dozen or so a year, some people buy direct even in its sold out status. But that also means some have left the membership (died/foreclosed, etc) to give up those points and memberships so I still think it’s pretty much net neutral as far as growth.

 

[Sandisw]

I’ve seen pushback on pretty much every suggestion made, reasonable or not. Unfortunately, reasonable is subjective. All I’m saying is they should enforce the rules they already have in place. 20 reservations (or whatever that number is) and no commercial renting. Quite a few people have already given reasonable definitions of what “commercial” is. It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that. And I’m sure multiple people will push back on that. Just the enforcement of what already exists. If you’re not commercial renting, why pushback? (Not you, you. I’m speaking of the general you)

And I don’t fully disagree with what you’ve said but if spec renting isn’t explicitly against the rules, fine, but I do believe it is being exploited, which is causing harm to the membership. They could make it like OTUP and have it so spec rentals are only allowed if it was booked after the 7mo window. Even if you booked it with the intention of using it, making it so you have to cancel and either rebook that spec rental at 7mo or use your points for a rental in another way, doesn’t impede in your ability to rent, which again, no one is trying to stop. But it does give some power back to owning for personal enjoyment and home resort priority. And before someone asks how Disney would differentiate a spec rental and a regular points rental, if you put your points for rent at 11mos and someone asks you to book something before 7mos, the renters name would be the first and only name made as lead. Spec rentals always have to have a lead change. See, this feels like a reasonable compromise to me, but I know there will never be pleasing everyone but there has to be some give and take here.

As for walking, I’m of the camp that walking is mostly a consequence of the massive growth of DVC rental culture and it will be mostly cured once the issues around renting are resolved. I just don’t agree with anyone saying that the hard to get rooms will always be impossible so shut up and don’t complain. There aren’t more BWV owners now than there were 10 years ago. But I’ve read from a few longtime owners on these boards that have said that even though it was always gone quickly, it has gotten increasingly more difficult, if not impossible, to book standard view rooms in recent years. But you’ll probably find them for rent at 10 mo and 29 days on the rental sites and FB pages. If people don’t see that as a problem, I think we’re looking at what DVC is supposed to be, as fundamentally different things.

See, that’s where we disagree. The contract does not allow for them to put restrictions in place to limit renting, unless it’s based on commercial, and saying you can’t rent until 7 months does just that.

I don’t see how when a rental happens creates an owner who is renting commercially. An owner rents at 7 months the exact same thing that is renting now at 10 months…what makes one action commercial and one not?

That is the part that doesn’t fit for me and what I expect with how DVC sets rules…it needs to be based on what owners expect “commercial” to mean in the context of the contract…and the words reasonable and pattern of rental activity are there to give us guidance.

And yes, people have given definitions of commercial but all of them can apply to even just one rental…things like make a profit. Well, every rental makes a profit.

So, how does the commercial aspect fit in relation to the contract? Unless people want DVC to say every rental is a commercial act? And thus be prohibited? We both know no one is suggesting that.

That’s why rules around spec rentals don’t seem to fit because it moves away from what is prohibited. And that is using your DVC for a commercial reasons…

It is also why I, and some others do not see it as a reasonable solution because that is adding limitations to all renting, commercial or not.

Whatever changes that are put in place should be clear that the situation is in the terms of what DVCs language is around commercial.

The 20 reservations rule was written per membership and that is why it’s not working…people found a way around it by creating multiple memberships so that none were technically in violation…IMO, this is why they said they added people to Yvonne’s team to deal with this because things need to adjusted to prevent what seems to have happened.

IMO, what DVC is realizing is that with the ease of renting now given social media and the internet, it’s too easy to get around that threshold and now a better threshold to define patterns needs to be decided.

I also don’t think anyone has ever said that we shouldn’t stop renting that is obvious commercial because rooms will remain hard to get.

But rather that hard to get is hard to get and even with no renting, they will be. So, for me, that shouldn’t even play a role in setting rules and enforcement.

Just because there is not the same issue happening for SSR owners, doesn’t mean rules should be made based on a specific resorts situation.

In terms of the product, yes, the main purpose is for pleasure but we also bought a product that gives us the ability to use our points for whomever we want, including renters.

It’s why the exploding rental market doesn’t bother me because even if all the large point owners who are renting as a business are gone, the rental market will remain healthy…and as the membership has grown, so has the number of rentals.

As I have shared, I don’t rent and don’t intend to ever be someone who rents.

But that doesn’t mean I want the product to change and have DVC add rules that micromanage an owners rentals when commercial isn’t even part of the equation. Because that would be changing the product that I bought.

 

[Sandisw]

lol I don’t think I need a source? Unless I’ve misunderstood how this works, it’s sold out so how can the membership grow for a sold out resort?…Let me amend, perhaps it grows by a couple dozen or so a year, some people buy direct even in its sold out status. But that also means some have left the membership (died/foreclosed, etc) to give up those points and memberships so I still think it’s pretty much net neutral as far as growth.

I think where it can be different is that when a contract is taken back by DVD, it may be sold in smaller amounts than what it was.

So, there definitely can be more owners today than there were 10 years ago because back then, even sold out, the price direct was not insane so some did indeed add on small contracts.

 

[lowlight]

This latest rental debate thread has been fascinating to read and experience. It's like listening to my 4-year-old granddaughter reading a Dr. Suess book aloud: the words are meaningless, but she gives it her all! It's entertaining, to say the least.

We are 45 pages into this thread, and I doubt many positions or opinions have been swayed or changed.

I fully support DVC implementing any rule modifications or clarifications to reduce the abuses to the DVC rental landscape and walking of reservations, as both have gotten out of hand. If that means that we, as owners, lose some measure of flexibility to the program as it exists today, then so be it. We only have ourselves and other owners to blame.

Whatever DVC decides to do, if anything, will likely be met with 25% of owners loving it, 25% hating it, 50% completely oblivious, and 100% of DISboarders having an opinion on why their opinion is the best opinion.

Onwards and upwards.....

You are correct, but personally my target audience isn't fellow owners. I know who reads these forums. So do the people who tirelessly come to the same threads to, incognito, defend their renting habits. I am trying to drum up enough ground support so that eventually the noise can be heard all the way to the upper reaches of DVC. It's why I tell every person who asks me what I think of DVC and if they should buy the same thing- no, rent.

In a perfect world, I'd like DVC to allow some middle ground, but...if I have to choose between renting and walking staying the way it is, or burning it to the ground, please excuse me while I get the kindling. People are vastly underestimating the amount of owners who look like sweet little Jane or Bob next to you at the meetings and are actually big time renters who make a living off selling the rooms I want to people who never invested a dime into DVC.

 

[5kidsmommy]

You are correct, but personally my target audience isn't fellow owners. I know who reads these forums. So do the people who tirelessly come to the same threads to, incognito, defend their renting habits. I am trying to drum up enough ground support so that eventually the noise can be heard all the way to the upper reaches of DVC. It's why I tell every person who asks me what I think of DVC and if they should buy the same thing- no, rent.

In a perfect world, I'd like DVC to allow some middle ground, but...if I have to choose between renting and walking staying the way it is, or burning it to the ground, please excuse me while I get the kindling. People are vastly underestimating the amount of owners who look like sweet little Jane or Bob next to you at the meetings and are actually big time renters who make a living off selling the rooms I want to people who never invested a dime into DVC.

This is why I am so glad my husband and I are boring. We own at SSR with enough points for our two 1 bedroom trips. We book at 11 months and I don't stress about staying at other resorts. I have to wonder how many folks are boring like us. We dipped our feet by renting and then my husband was sold. If we ever decide we don't want to travel to WDW anymore, we will sell. We already run a business, we don't need to do some DIsney DVC side hussle, just too much work.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

This latest rental debate thread has been fascinating to read and experience. It's like listening to my 4-year-old granddaughter reading a Dr. Suess book aloud: the words are meaningless, but she gives it her all! It's entertaining, to say the least.

We are 45 pages into this thread, and I doubt many positions or opinions have been swayed or changed.

I fully support DVC implementing any rule modifications or clarifications to reduce the abuses to the DVC rental landscape and walking of reservations, as both have gotten out of hand. If that means that we, as owners, lose some measure of flexibility to the program as it exists today, then so be it. We only have ourselves and other owners to blame.

Whatever DVC decides to do, if anything, will likely be met with 25% of owners loving it, 25% hating it, 50% completely oblivious, and 100% of DISboarders having an opinion on why their opinion is the best opinion.

Onwards and upwards.....

I was writing up a whole long response but honestly, you’ve said it best, well done.

Bless you @Sandisw I hate when we’re on opposite sides of something haha though I still don’t fully agree, you are inexhaustible and know too much, you wield too much power (I know you’re a teacher but you would’ve made a fantastic litigator )

Happy New Year everyone, hope this year brings you all the Disney trips and less Disboard arguments!

 

[Sandisw]

I was writing up a whole long response but honestly, you’ve said it best, well done.

Bless you @Sandisw I hate when we’re on opposite sides of something haha though I still don’t fully agree, you are inexhaustible and know too much, you wield too much power (I know you’re a teacher but you would’ve made a fantastic litigator )

Happy New Year everyone, hope this year brings you all the Disney trips and less Disboard arguments!

Lawyer was on my list but teaching became my calling!!! lol.

Hey, the best part of all of this is that I think that these conversations really do give a lot of insight for each side of the coin for those new or those who don’t read the contracts and things as some of us!!

And for those DVC people who read them!
Happy New Year to you!

 

[nalababybear]

lol I don’t think I need a source? Unless I’ve misunderstood how this works, it’s sold out so how can the membership grow for a sold out resort?…Let me amend, perhaps it grows by a couple dozen or so a year, some people buy direct even in its sold out status. But that also means some have left the membership (died/foreclosed, etc) to give up those points and memberships so I still think it’s pretty much net neutral as far as growth.

Consolidation of points by megaconglomerate. That reduces owners

 

[Chuck S]

lol I don’t think I need a source? Unless I’ve misunderstood how this works, it’s sold out so how can the membership grow for a sold out resort?…Let me amend, perhaps it grows by a couple dozen or so a year, some people buy direct even in its sold out status. But that also means some have left the membership (died/foreclosed, etc) to give up those points and memberships so I still think it’s pretty much net neutral as far as growth.

Another way for it to grow in membership is a member with a main contract and add ons, selling off the add-ons. For instance, I have a 230 point contract at OKW, with 3 add-on OKW contracts, a 35, a 40, and another 40. If I put those add-ons up for sale, and 3 people who don't already own at OKW buy them, OKW has added 3 new members, right?

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

Another way for it to grow in membership is a member with a main contract and add ons, selling off the add-ons. For instance, I have a 230 point contract at OKW, with 3 add-on OKW contracts, a 35, a 40, and another 40. If I put those add-ons up for sale, and 3 people who don't already own at OKW buy them, OKW has added 3 new members, right?

Yep I understand that it could grow, I said that earlier. But in this same vein someone could take a couple of 50, 75, and 100pters and make a single bigger contract. I just think that these things mostly even out. And not to mention the amount that Disney still holds. No resort is at VGF completely sold out status so there’s still a not-so-insignificant chunk of points (and by extension, members) not in the system, so I still maintain it’s likely less members than it was years ago when the resort first sold out but I could definitely be wrong.

 

[BeachClub2014]

There aren’t more BWV owners now than there were 10 years ago. But I’ve read from a few longtime owners on these boards that have said that even though it was always gone quickly, it has gotten increasingly more difficult, if not impossible, to book standard view rooms in recent years.

How do you know that?

Please provide your source.

lol I don’t think I need a source? Unless I’ve misunderstood how this works, it’s sold out so how can the membership grow for a sold out resort?

I think where it can be different is that when a contract is taken back by DVD, it may be sold in smaller amounts than what it was.

So, there definitely can be more owners today than there were 10 years ago because back then, even sold out, the price direct was not insane so some did indeed add on small contracts.

Consolidation of points by megaconglomerate. That reduces owners

Another way for it to grow in membership is a member with a main contract and add ons, selling off the add-ons. For instance, I have a 230 point contract at OKW, with 3 add-on OKW contracts, a 35, a 40, and another 40. If I put those add-ons up for sale, and 3 people who don't already own at OKW buy them, OKW has added 3 new members, right?

ep I understand that it could grow, I said that earlier. But in this same vein someone could take a couple of 50, 75, and 100pters and make a single bigger contract. I just think that these things mostly even out. And not to mention the amount that Disney still holds.

Interesting detour.

Of course, the total number of owners and contracts can and will vary over time, but I don't believe that to be the point that @MerlinandtheMouse was actually making. Perhaps I am wrong, but I read the point being made in the original post, which is that the total number of overall points at BWV hasn't changed over time.

The number of owners controlling that fixed pool of points doesn't matter. I believe @MerlinandtheMouse's point (with apologies if I have it all wrong) is that reservation walking by whoever is controlling the BWV points has made it more difficult to obtain certain rooms than had previously been the case. The total points haven't changed, but walking has negatively impacted availability at the 11-month window.

 

[Chuck S]

Interesting detour.

Of course, the total number of owners and contracts can and will vary over time, but I don't believe that to be the point that @MerlinandtheMouse was actually making. Perhaps I am wrong, but I read the point being made in the original post, which is that the total number of overall points at BWV hasn't changed over time.

The number of owners controlling that fixed pool of points doesn't matter. I believe @MerlinandtheMouse's point (with apologies if I have it all wrong) is that reservation walking by whoever is controlling the BWV points has made it more difficult to obtain certain rooms than had previously been the case. The total points haven't changed, but walking has negatively impacted availability at the 11-month window.

It isn't just the total number of points at the resort though. If a resort is made up mostly of small point owners who are using their points solely for family travel, say 125 points or less, then there will be greatly increased competition for available studios, than if most of the resort contracts for owners using them solely for family travel own 250+ points. You can't double the number of owners competing for studios without there being an impact on availability for studios during high demand travel times.

 

[zavandor]

Interesting detour.

Of course, the total number of owners and contracts can and will vary over time, but I don't believe that to be the point that @MerlinandtheMouse was actually making. Perhaps I am wrong, but I read the point being made in the original post, which is that the total number of overall points at BWV hasn't changed over time.

The number of owners controlling that fixed pool of points doesn't matter. I believe @MerlinandtheMouse's point (with apologies if I have it all wrong) is that reservation walking by whoever is controlling the BWV points has made it more difficult to obtain certain rooms than had previously been the case. The total points haven't changed, but walking has negatively impacted availability at the 11-month window.

BWV is expensive. It commands a premium on the resale market. People are ready to pay that premium because they want to stay there and it's difficult to get at 7 months.
This has two effects:
1) since it is bought at a premium, it's more likely that people justify the purchase thinking they can get the standard rooms. Or they bought because they want BW.view rooms and they are never available at 7 months.
2) when sold direct, BWV was priced like OKW, BRV and BCV. People bought to stay there OR because it was what's on offer and they intended to book all resorts over time, maybe with only a slight preference for BWV. Since now people buy only to stay there, fewer BWV points are used for other resorts, making home resort booking more competitive.

Also, DVC can split contracts reacquired via ROFR and resell in smaller contracts. Since the premium for direct points is higher then resale, smaller addons are more frequent than when the resort was in active sales (minumum number of points for contracts was also higher, 160). This may increase the number of members in general and those with smaller contracts in particular. You can stretch a 50 points addon further if you book standard rooms, increasing demand.

Those are just hypothesis, I cannot prove if and how much they have an effect to the increased demand for standard/BW rooms. But I'm pretty confident they have a non trivial effect. I don't think it's correct blaming it only on rentals and walking. I think walking is rather the effect of the other factors, making things worse for sure, but still not the originating cause.

 

[BeachClub2014]

It isn't just the total number of points at the resort though. If a resort is made up mostly of small point owners who are using their points solely for family travel, say 125 points or less, then there will be greatly increased competition for available studios, than if most of the resort contracts for owners using them solely for family travel own 250+ points. You can't double the number of owners competing for studios without there being an impact on availability for studios during high demand travel times.

That wasn't the point of my comment. None of us know about the number of BWV owners over time, but I doubt it has doubled, as you've suggested.

The one constant is the number of points available to secure the rooms.

 

[Chuck S]

That wasn't the point of my comment. None of us know about the number of BWV owners over time, but I doubt it has doubled, as you've suggested.

The one constant is the number of points available to secure the rooms.

I didn't suggest anything, it was an demonstration of how a large number of small point owners could also negatively impact the availability of studios, and limit flexibility of the system. Remember the original minimum point buy-in for DVC was 230, and DVC did the overall membership no favor by dropping it to 100 for a time, to boost sales.