DVC plans to target commercial renters

[Tatebeck]

Except they have to allow for people to extend beyond 7 days as some people do take longer trips.

That means some large point owners might end up with an advantage here and could still tie up a room for a few weeks by extending and then dropping initial days when they pass whatever window is there to modify.

That is why having different rules for different situations makes this not as easy as it seems because DVC needs to take all that into consideration when deciding the rules.

If we here on the DiS can come up with the what if situations, and we are pretty advanced in our thinking, so will owners who don’t understand why DVC is making it complicated.

Right now, it’s simple…you can make a reservation 11 months plus 7 days from the calendar check in date for home resort and 7 plus 7 for others

You can modify the reservation without penalty up until 31 days before the check in day.

I just think that if they decide to actually implement changes, they will want to keep it as simple as the can so that it is seen as an enhancement to being able to book our trips.

I think you misunderstood it a bit. There would be no large point advantage other than perhaps having enough to book the entire week instead of just a few days. But that is inevitable when you let people book 7 days at a time at any point.

In my example, the second they try to drop days moving the starting date past 7 days from their initial starting date, it wouldn't let them select that date or later as a check-in date, only allowing them as a middle or ending date, unless the new trip they are trying to modify to is fully available for everyone else under normal booking rules. If they aren't, then they would get the error message. No advantage at all past the 11+7 window at the time when they first booked that reservation

 

[crvetter]

Why don’t they adjust the points so that it equals demand if the animal kingdom value rooms were a point or two less than a standard room there wouldn’t be such high demand for them. If the boardwalk standard view rooms were only two points less than a pool and garden view they wouldn’t be as popular so maybe all the pool and gardens drop by a point and the standards come up if Disney wants to “fix the problem”, adjust the points to bring down the regular rooms and bring up the points of the specialty rooms or with the concierge level at animal Kingdom maybe they need to be a couple points higher.

Given the prior attempt to reallocate points across views and room types didn’t go so well on here I doubt it would be looked favorably again.

Also given that DVC didn’t try to do it again to date (and the change to the trust system) I full expect the arguments made (or some of them) by owners that reallocating across Units (thus views and room types) is likely to stand up in any sort of legal argument.

Just an FYI, I’m biased in the above as I was one of the “few” heavily involved in that process to getting those charts reversed.

 

[zavandor]

Why don’t they adjust the points so that it equals demand if the animal kingdom value rooms were a point or two less than a standard room there wouldn’t be such high demand for them. If the boardwalk standard view rooms were only two points less than a pool and garden view they wouldn’t be as popular so maybe all the pool and gardens drop by a point and the standards come up if Disney wants to “fix the problem”, adjust the points to bring down the regular rooms and bring up the points of the specialty rooms or with the concierge level at animal Kingdom maybe they need to be a couple points higher.

It has been questioned if moving points between units is allowed. They have done it in the past, but once we've told them we think it's not allowed, they've rolled back the latest change (the 2020 point charts) and never done it again.
The 2020 point charts included the more egregious change of increasing the lockoff premium (which screamed "illegal"), so maybe that was the only reason they rolled it back. But yet, the fact they've done a big reallocation across seasons but not across units lets me think they at least think it is questionable and they're not so sure they would win in court.

Also, if we talk about what's fair for the owners, some people have bought with the intention of booking the cheapest rooms (or at least, to have the option). They might prefer as it is now and roll the dice rather than seeing AKV value or BWV standard cost nearly as much as the next category.

 

[Sandisw]

I think you misunderstood it a bit. There would be no large point advantage other than perhaps having enough to book the entire week instead of just a few days. But that is inevitable when you let people book 7 days at a time at any point.

In my example, the second they try to drop days moving the starting date past 7 days from their initial starting date, it wouldn't let them select that date or later as a check-in date, only allowing them as a middle or ending date, unless the new trip they are trying to modify to is fully available for everyone else under normal booking rules. If they aren't, then they would get the error message. No advantage at all past the 11+7 window at the time when they first booked that reservation

So, if I book and extend a reservation to 21 days, and decide to move my check in date to say day 8, my trip is now all in the 7 day window and now can keep adding more days and hold until I am well past it.

What would have to happen is they would need to limit reservations to less than the current 30 days which you can book.

Not saying they can’t do any of this…they made the statement that they make the rules so they can a set it up any way they want.

But, the point I was making is all those nuisances have to be considered when changes are made and DVC will have to decide what changes they are willing to implement that are not going to be seen, or be, a negative for owners who do not walk.

 

[nalababybear]

@zavandor people tend to want the cheapest and best. Thst is why value and club, then studios grabbed first. And probably the source of the loud voices of taking the most desirable parts of the program.

@Sandisw this. Folk who are savvy and regular users will have an advantage regardless of the rules cause they will learn and know them and leverage the work arounds.

While normal DVC members will just have more rules to remember and diminishes the products attractiveness in the sell.

It seems they are trying to police the current rules more actively and do it that way to lower the current activity

 

[Sandisw]

@zavandor people tend to want the cheapest and best. Thst is why value and club, then studios grabbed first. And probably the source of the loud voices of taking the most desirable parts of the program.

@Sandisw this. Folk who are savvy and regular users will have an advantage regardless of the rules cause they will learn and know them and leverage the work arounds.

While normal DVC members will just have more rules to remember and diminishes the products attractiveness in the sell.

It seems they are trying to police the current rules more actively and do it that way to lower the current activity

And some of the statements by the board at the meetings supported this…that the savy owners figured out how to push the limits in terms of using the membership for commercial purposes and walking.

My take is that this is why they have devoted more CMs to the topic of renting and I have a feeling that the changes we see will involve an update from DVc on how they define “commercial” which is what many of us had always said.

DVC is the only one who gets to decide how to define it and enforce it. I still think certain aspects, like renting a confirmed reservations won’t go away, but I think the way they apply “pattern of rentals” and the flagging of accounts at 20 reservations before review could very well be lowered…just my guess.

 

[Chuck S]

I still think DVC created some of this problem when they allowed small add-on contracts. The original point charts were designed for owners to have at least 230 points. Instead of allowing free standing add on contracts, they should have some how rolled them into the original contracts for the same home resort, or been diligent about exercising ROFR on small contracts. The sheer niumber of small contract owners also creates increased demand for the low point (standard view and value) studios that seem to be the target reservations for commercial renters to prebook.

As far as walking, I don't like the practice, but used it to book a wheelchair/scooter GV during Thanksgiving week at OKW...again, kind of DVCs own fault at OKW by not retrofitting some sort of wheelchair lift or small elevator to all the buildings. There are only 3 GVs at OKW that have access for wheelchairs and scooters out of the 27 GVs. the remaining 24 have their entrances on the 2nd floor of non-elevator buildings. There are a lot of wheelchair/scooter users that don't need a fully modified GV, but need to at least be able to enter the front door of the unit. Even adding just one lift or elevator PER YEAR could have been a big help.

 

[DanCali]

Agreed and while walking isn't technically against the rules I'd like to see it stopped.

Commercial renting is against the rules.

Just like with your kids, don't make a rule if you're not going to enforce it. Then what's the point?

Sure, but if you set rules you also have to define them very clearly.

"Commercial renting" is vague, and probably purposefully so (because all timeshare developers seem to use that term).

I've seen older posts taking about a reservation limit. Is it 10 reservations? 20 reservations? Should it even matter when a broker can rent 1-2 night stays and make a little bit on each reservation, or rent a lot fewer 7-10 night stays and more money on each rental?

Maybe it should be based on the percentage of points someone owns - someone who bought 1000 points will have more to rent than someone who bought 150 points if they sustain an injury one year and can't travel? But if someone rents points once in a while because of medical issues, is that "commercial" at all? Or what if someone loses their job, and can’t afford to buy airfare for five people to travel to their home resort? Shouldn’t that person be able to rent out their points that year if they choose to? Does that make it a “commercial” enterprise?

Is it commercial when done by a LLC, but not commercial when done as an individual? Should there be any restrictions on renting home resort reservations booked at 7+ months out (that's deeded ownership)? On the other hand, DVC tells buyers they buy at 1 place and have 15+ homes, so should there be any restrictions at all?

Unless it's something obvious like a broker renting thousands or tens of thousands of points a year (and you do have some of those out there listing on prominent sites), what does "commercial" mean?

 

[nalababybear]

Sure, but if you set rules you also have to define them very clearly.

"Commercial renting" is vague, and probably purposefully so (because all timeshare developers seem to use that term).

I've seen older posts taking about a reservation limit. Is it 10 reservations? 20 reservations? Should it even matter when a broker can rent 1-2 night stays and make a little bit on each reservation, or rent a lot fewer 7-10 night stays and more money on each rental?

Maybe it should be based on the percentage of points someone owns - someone who bought 1000 points will have more to rent than someone who bought 150 points if they sustain an injury one year and can't travel? But if someone rents points once in a while because of medical issues, is that "commercial" at all?

Is it commercial when done by a LLC, but not commercial when done as an individual? Should there be any restrictions on renting home resort reservations booked at 7+ months out (that's deeded ownership)? On the other hand, DVC tells buyers they buy at 1 place and have 15+ homes, so should there be any restrictions at all?

Unless it's something obvious like a broker renting thousands or tens of thousands of points a year (and you do have some of those out there listing on prominent sites), what does "commercial" mean?

Exactly. Define the guardrails. Let people play by the rules and not an arbitrary line in the sand.

Enforce from there.

Walking is a byproduct of current rules. If you want to make it hard and inundate phones at 8am again, that's not going to solve the issue at 11months, just raise our MF to have more staff doing the booking.

KIS. Define rules clearly. Enforce them.

Keep my MFs low.

 

[Tatebeck]

So, if I book and extend a reservation to 21 days, and decide to move my check in date to say day 8, my trip is now all in the 7 day window and now can keep adding more days and hold until I am well past it.

What would have to happen is they would need to limit reservations to less than the current 30 days which you can book.

Not saying they can’t do any of this…they made the statement that they make the rules so they can a set it up any way they want.

But, the point I was making is all those nuisances have to be considered when changes are made and DVC will have to decide what changes they are willing to implement that are not going to be seen, or be, a negative for owners who do not walk.

You are close to getting it now I think. In your example you would be able to move the start date to the end of the 11+7 from when you originally booked. But when trying to change the check in day 8 days forward (11+8 from the original date) then it wouldn't let you. But then yes, it would let you extend that reservation up to the max of 30 days, but would no longer let you drop the starting days unless there were still rooms available for everyone else to book normally.

It only affects walkers and limits walking to 7 days forward without having an effect on extending reservations.

Did you want something more restrictive than that?

 

[nalababybear]

You are close to getting it now I think. In your example you would be able to move the start date to the end of the 11+7 from when you originally booked. But when trying to change the check in day 8 days forward (11+8 from the original date) then it wouldn't let you. But then yes, it would let you extend that reservation up to the max of 30 days, but would no longer let you drop the starting days unless there were still rooms available for everyone else to book normally.

It only affects walkers and limits walking to 7 days forward without having an effect on extending reservations.

Did you want something more restrictive than that?

That's restrictive enough and for those high volume renters, that's not a problem. They have plenty of points to rinse/repeat while the casual owner will be playing from behind with limited points constantly.

 

[Sandisw]

You are close to getting it now I think. In your example you would be able to move the start date to the end of the 11+7 from when you originally booked. But when trying to change the check in day 8 days forward (11+8 from the original date) then it wouldn't let you. But then yes, it would let you extend that reservation up to the max of 30 days, but would no longer let you drop the starting days unless there were still rooms available for everyone else to book normally.

It only affects walkers and limits walking to 7 days forward without having an effect on extending reservations.

Did you want something more restrictive than that?

Personally, I don’t want any changes to it because I prefer having the ability to make whatever changes I want when I want.

Walking doesn’t bother me…but you certainly could have larger point owners holding rooms for longer if modification is too strict, even at the 11 month window.

As I said, I’d rather see them meet the demand for those rooms thst walking is an issue by doing the lottery systems instead.

Plus, when supply outweighs demand, those that can’t get their rooms because of walkers have a very high chance of getting them with a waitlist and by waiting a few days to pick it up.

But, the board said they are aware and reviewing so if any changes happen, it will be because they think it will be seen as better and not worse….which, IMO, isn’t going to be an easy sell for all those owners out there who might see any new modification rules as a step backwards because they have no idea why it had to be changed.

Think about it…SSR owners don’t see the impact of walking like those at BWV do, and that is only really those SV or BW view rooms…plenty of pool and garden still there.

I guess we shall see how it shakes out.

 

[nalababybear]

Personally, I don’t want any changes to it because I prefer having the ability to make whatever changes I want when I want.

Walking doesn’t bother me…but you certainly could have larger point owners holding rooms for longer if modification is too strict, even at the 11 month window.

As I said, I’d rather see them meet the demand for those rooms thst walking is an issue by doing the lottery systems instead.

Plus, when supply outweighs demand, those that can’t get their rooms because of walkers have a very high chance of getting them with a waitlist and by waiting a few days to pick it up.

But, the board said they are aware and reviewing so if any changes happen, it will be because they think it will be seen as better and not worse….which, IMO, isn’t going to be an easy sell for all those owners out there who might see any new modification rules as a step backwards because they have no idea why it had to be changed.

Think about it…SSR owners don’t see the impact of walking like those at BWV do, and that is only really those SV or BW view rooms…plenty of pool and garden still there.

I guess we shall see how it shakes out.

Great reminder to folk to use the Waitlist function -- walkers clear out as the days pass on the way to their desired weeks.

Interesting take on the lottery. How they would institute that would be hard as people vary on the days they want and start; so where is the cutoff?

One way I can see this done at least as a pilot is for the holiday and spring break seasons, and using a natural break like point seasons to be a hard stop on those days. Then on the morning of that day, institute a Queue It in the morning to get in a book the reservation based on the lottery.

The issue remains duration and start dates beyond a single jump off point. At least it breaks walkers at a hard stop and single lottery point to make everyone equitable for a brief moment.

 

[Sandisw]

Great reminder to folk to use the Waitlist function -- walkers clear out as the days pass on the way to their desired weeks.

Interesting take on the lottery. How they would institute that would be hard as people vary on the days they want and start; so where is the cutoff?

One way I can see this done at least as a pilot is for the holiday and spring break seasons, and using a natural break like point seasons to be a hard stop on those days. Then on the morning of that day, institute a Queue It in the morning to get in a book the reservation based on the lottery.

The issue remains duration and start dates beyond a single jump off point. At least it breaks walkers at a hard stop and single lottery point to make everyone equitable for a brief moment.

The contract already has that system built in. Anyone interested in certain dates and a specific room gets on the list and then people are randomly given the room. And, you get only the official one month advantage over non resort owners.

While walking works best at 11 months, it still happens other times so I think any limits to not being able to move check in date would apply to all, and not be, you can if you are past a certain date…too complicated for the average owner….

And that is why I won’t be surprised that any changes they decide to do…will apply to every change, and not just ones at 11 months…or, just to those rooms that are at issue.

ETA: I also think that if they do make changes to curb that set of owners who have found ways around the current rules for what make it’s commercial, that alone might be enough and no booking or modification rules will change.

 

[Disfamwa]

The contract already has that system built in. Anyone interested in certain dates and a specific room gets on the list and then people are randomly given the room. And, you get only the official one month advantage over non resort owners.

While walking works best at 11 months, it still happens other times so I think any limits to not being able to move check in date would apply to all, and not be, you can if you are past a certain date…too complicated for the average owner….

And that is why I won’t be surprised that any changes they decide to do…will apply to every change, and not just ones at 11 months…or, just to those rooms that are at issue.

ETA: I also think that if they do make changes to curb that set of owners who have found ways around the current rules for what make it’s commercial, that alone might be enough and no booking or modification rules will change.

I agree. I think if they make changes to crack down on commercial speculative confirmed rentals, the walking will decrease.

Additionally, I think they should upgrade the waitlist system to grab cancellations right away. I think some of the individual commercial renters frequently just scan the booking calendars for any available openings of certain room types. I don’t know if other people feel the same, but I would feel better knowing my waitlist couldn’t be circumvented by a computer script scanning for openings or a commercial renter manually scanning for openings.

 

[heynowirv]

Damn, now I’m REALLY glad I stocked up on popcorn. The pearl clutching, righteous indignance, and apoplexy is gonna be off the charts!

And I've remember being dinged by the Mods for being sarcastic.

 

[tx911]

I agree. I think if they make changes to crack down on commercial speculative confirmed rentals, the walking will decrease.

Additionally, I think they should upgrade the waitlist system to grab cancellations right away. I think some of the individual commercial renters frequently just scan the booking calendars for any available openings of certain room types. I don’t know if other people feel the same, but I would feel better knowing my waitlist couldn’t be circumvented by a computer script scanning for openings or a commercial renter manually scanning for openings.

I don't know if we can be sure walking will decrease without commercial renters.

Couldn't a crack down on commercial renting may make walking more productive, and encourage average users to do it even more?

 

[Disfamwa]

I don't know if we can be sure walking will decrease without commercial renters.

Couldn't a crack down on commercial renting may make walking more productive, and encourage average users to do it even more?

Well the average renter is not arranging their rental anywhere close to 11 months out to be able to book the lower point rooms (BWV standard studio or AKL value studio as examples). I think commercial renters walk reservations to certain low-point high value dates and room categories and then sit on those reservations for however long it takes find a renter. If they were stopped from renting out speculative confirmed reservations, I bet some amount of the walking would decrease and then average DVC members would feel less pressure to walk too.

It’s hard to say how much the walking would decrease, and there would likely still be some times (early December for instance) where walking was still more popular.

Has walking gotten worse as speculative confirmed rentals have increased? I haven’t been an owner long enough to know.

Edit: Could Disney ban people from the parks who they deem to violate the not for commercial use part of our contracts? I feel like even most commercial renters are Disney fans, and the threat of being banned from the parks might be a powerful tool (they should clearly define what counts as commercial before doing anything like this). I know parks is a different branch, but they probably have an interest in shutting down commercial renters too since it eats into their hotel business.

 

[Brian Noble]

I'm not sure speculative renters are doing all that much walking. They don't need any particular dates, just some dates within a desirable range.

 

[Sandisw]

Since the contract for DVC has nothing to do with the parks, I don’t think they can ban them from property.

I think the remedy would be canceling reservations above and beyond what is seen in violation, which is what was in the documents years ago.

They may be able to lock the account is someway. That’s a good question for someone with actual contract law experience.