DVC plans to target commercial renters

[xdan0920]

I still think we risk a change that will be more in line with cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.

When have Disney ever made a change that was in benefits of the members - I know they say it is, but is it really?

I do however agree that if we can avoid the mega renters, then its a good thing, but if a member rents 5-10 reservations a year, I dont really see that as problem.

And for walking, the system is build on FCFS and if I as a regular member can book BWV standard view and value rooms, so can everyone else. Yes you might need to try more than once, but its doable. Sorry to say but members just have to stop whining and suck it up.

Even if or when Disney introduces a new way or doing things to crack down on mega renters, it wont change the fact that standard views and value rooms will still be hard to get for the majority of time for all members. Members would still be whining because they can't book the hard to get rooms.

If they introduces the lottery for ie christmas week, it wont matter for the majority of owners, because they still wont get the rooms anyway - is it more fair? maybe. With this lottery you can do absolutely nothing to increase your winning chances. If you try to book yourself you can at least increase your chances every time you try to book - you might still fail but your odds are higher than with the lottery.

Just wondering, how often do you rent your points?

 

[Cyberc1978]

Just wondering, how often do you rent your points?

Every year I have some points left that I rent. Some years I have more points than others.

 

[Genie+]

It will be interesting if they add something that prevents owners from confirmed vs on demand renting when an owner is renting occasionally.

I still have my doubts they would or can because prior to CFW, there is language that says the rules should be reasonable, whatever that means.

For whatever reason DVC is reluctant to clarify commercial renting (further than the super cloudy 20 thing). I don’t think they can differentiate between confirmed vs on demand renting either. They can differentiate what points continuously keep getting used on a for-profit basis.

 

[Chuck S]

I still think we risk a change that will be more in line with cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.

When have Disney ever made a change that was in benefits of the members - I know they say it is, but is it really?

I do however agree that if we can avoid the mega renters, then its a good thing, but if a member rents 5-10 reservations a year, I dont really see that as problem.

And for walking, the system is build on FCFS and if I as a regular member can book BWV standard view and value rooms, so can everyone else. Yes you might need to try more than once, but its doable. Sorry to say but members just have to stop whining and suck it up.

Even if or when Disney introduces a new way or doing things to crack down on mega renters, it wont change the fact that standard views and value rooms will still be hard to get for the majority of time for all members. Members would still be whining because they can't book the hard to get rooms.

If they introduces the lottery for ie christmas week, it wont matter for the majority of owners, because they still wont get the rooms anyway - is it more fair? maybe. With this lottery you can do absolutely nothing to increase your winning chances. If you try to book yourself you can at least increase your chances every time you try to book - you might still fail but your odds are higher than with the lottery.

A very good explanation of why DVC Members should be careful what they wish for. No system will be perfect and fulfill the needs of every member, and there are many that could be far worse than what we have now.

 

[Chuck S]

I don’t think they can differentiate between confirmed vs on demand renting either.

Sure they can. When I rented points, I got the info from the renters first, and then made the reservation in their names from the start, there was no need to call member services and change names on the reservation.

Unless your question was, can they legally make that distinction and treat those reservations differently? I'm no lawyer, but I'll say likely not, without making new rules that would be affecting a lot of innocent members who book rooms for familiy and friends, then change the reservation names after they find out who is definitely going on the trip.

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t think the special dates will be enough to curtail the problem.

I think certain patterns of rental behavior are obvious (anyone with eyes can easily identify the big offenders on Facebook, so I’m sure DVC could easily see the rental patterns if they wanted to). Normal members occasionally renting out points (whether it’s all their points or lower percentage) likely have rental reservations that look very different from the ones commerical spec renters have.

I encourage people to slowly infiltrate the Facebook groups and screen shot examples of egregious commercial spec rentals by the same group of people and send them to DVC. These low point times/rooms and desirable date spec rentals devalue the program for the rest of us. The argument that they would be booked either way is ridiculous in my mind. Obviously, they would get booked either way, but some unfair advantage is currently being used to book these rooms when the same “impossible to get” room type seem to be easily booked by this group of commercial renters over and over.

There are several different things going on that people want DVC to take action against.

One concern is that these hard to get rooms at AKV and BWV are showing up a lot as rentals. If they did something like this for those rooms, it would stop that because names can’t be changed. It might help with walking of those rooms.

But, that fix doesn’t address cracking down on the rental market that has exploded with more and more owners renting regularly and some who have found ways to stay under DVC enforcement radar.

It doesn’t crack down on walking as a general practice that some prefer not be allowed

So, DVC has several things that they might need to evaluate and make adjustments.

 

[Genie+]

I dunno… if I ever saw some true reasons to ‘be careful what I wish for’ because DVC had a track record of such… I would have never bought DVC in the first place. So far it looks like they’ve been trying to balance their business interests with protecting the experience of the membership, because after all, they are selling the experience of membership. One may go back and point at at the missteps DVC has taken over the decades but were any of those a case of be careful what you wish for? No, nobody was asking that 1BRs be raised or presenting a problem where that was the solution. Under-estimating dues at VB/AUL, again not a case of be careful what you wish for. So I’m not sure why when all else fails the conversation keeps returning to scare tactics.

 

[Cyberc1978]

For whatever reason DVC is reluctant to clarify commercial renting (further than the super cloudy 20 thing). I don’t think they can differentiate between confirmed vs on demand renting either. They can differentiate what points continuously keep getting used on a for-profit basis.

What’s the difference between confirmed and on demand? Is one a confirmed reservation and the other when someone requests x dates at xyz resort?

 

[Genie+]

What’s the difference between confirmed and on demand? Is one a confirmed reservation and the other when someone requests x dates at xyz resort?

Yes. The confirmed would be reserving a date, then going to find a renter that wants it. On-demand the point owner waits until an interested party comes along to check what dates are available. Typically confirmed reservations tend to take the highest profit margin reservation found in the system.

 

[Chuck S]

I dunno… if I ever saw some true reasons to ‘be careful what I wish for’ because DVC had a track record of such… I would have never bought DVC in the first place. So far it looks like they’ve been trying to balance their business interests with protecting the experience of the membership, because after all, they are selling the experience of membership. One may go back and point at at the missteps DVC has taken over the decades but were any of those a case of be careful what you wish for? No, nobody was asking that 1BRs be raised or presenting a problem where that was the solution. Under-estimating dues at VB/AUL, again not a case of be careful what you wish for. So I’m not sure why when all else fails the conversation keeps returning to scare tactics.

And what woiuld be a workable, legal solution that would:

1) Not negatively impact members as a whole and
2) Pass muster with the State of Florida's timeshare regulatory board, that guarantees owners the right to rent?

And not every change DVC has made over the years has been a true benefit to members. For instance, did the change to the booking window from the last day of your trip to the first day benefit members, or just cut down on calls to Member servcies? It could be said thet changw actually increased walking of reservations.

Should they take steps to eliminate booking seasons entirely, having the same point chart year round? That is also an option, but it would need to be done over several years. Would that actuallly accomplish anything of value for the average DVC Member? Doubtful, and it certainly wouldn't change the mad rush for Holiday season commercial rentals.

Could they reduce the home resort booking window from 4 months to 1 month? Yes, but again, what would that accomplich that is good for the Membership overall?

So what do you suggest?

Right now, IMO, returning to the lottery system for High demand holiday reservations seems to be the only quasi-workable solution.

 

[Brian Noble]

I still think we risk a change that will be more in line with cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.

I would offer one possibility that I've grown to like: Wyndham's Owner Priority dates.

At several resorts, during the most in-demand times of year, an owner can:

• Book whatever they want with themselves as the lead guest
• Book as many other units as they want for their guests traveling at the same time*.
• Book up to two reservations per year for unaccompanied guests.

The limit of two is across all restricted resorts/periods.

For most small-scale owners, this is just fine--we are unlikely to rent more than once or twice a year, so this doesn't matter. It can make things a little complicated if you often send your adult children on vacation without going along, but the solution to that is to add them to one of the deeds/contracts. (Wyndham allows differently-titled properties in the same master account; the owners of "the account" are the union of all of the owners on each property.)

It can even work well for folks who rent more often; they just have to choose times/resorts that are not on the restricted list, and plenty of those exist.

When this plan was implemented, availability at some of the toughest-to-book resorts got MUCH better in a hurry. For example, it used to be next to impossible to get summer dates at Glacier Canyon in the Wisconsin Dells without owning there--and even that required effort. Now it's quite a bit easier.

Also: most of the large-scale Wyndham renters hate this, and many other rank-and-file owners (though not all of them) seem to think it is just fine. That tells me that it's targeted reasonably well.

-------
*: Last I knew, the dates did not have to line up exactly; as long as there is some overlap it is fine.

 

[tx911]

I would offer one possibility that I've grown to like: Wyndham's Owner Priority dates.

At several resorts, during the most in-demand times of year, an owner can:

• Book whatever they want with themselves as the lead guest
• Book as many other units as they want for their guests traveling at the same time*.
• Book up to two reservations per year for unaccompanied guests.

The limit of two is across all restricted resorts/periods.

For most small-scale owners, this is just fine--we are unlikely to rent more than once or twice a year, so this doesn't matter. It can make things a little complicated if you often send your adult children on vacation without going along, but the solution to that is to add them to one of the deeds/contracts. (Wyndham allows differently-titled properties in the same master account; the owners of "the account" are the union of all of the owners on each property.)

It can even work well for folks who rent more often; they just have to choose times/resorts that are not on the restricted list, and plenty of those exist.

When this plan was implemented, availability at some of the toughest-to-book resorts got MUCH better in a hurry. For example, it used to be next to impossible to get summer dates at Glacier Canyon in the Wisconsin Dells without owning there--and even that required effort. Now it's quite a bit easier.

-------
*: Last I knew, the dates did not have to line up exactly; as long as there is some overlap it is fine.

That seems like a really reasonable approach.

 

[Chuck S]

I would offer one possibility that I've grown to like: Wyndham's Owner Priority dates.

At several resorts, during the most in-demand times of year, an owner can:

• Book whatever they want with themselves as the lead guest
• Book as many other units as they want for their guests traveling at the same time*.
• Book up to two reservations per year for unaccompanied guests.

The limit of two is across all restricted resorts/periods.

For most small-scale owners, this is just fine--we are unlikely to rent more than once or twice a year, so this doesn't matter. It can make things a little complicated if you often send your adult children on vacation without going along, but the solution to that is to add them to one of the deeds/contracts. (Wyndham allows differently-titled properties in the same master account; the owners of "the account" are the union of all of the owners on each property.)

It can even work well for folks who rent more often; they just have to choose times/resorts that are not on the restricted list, and plenty of those exist.

When this plan was implemented, availability at some of the toughest-to-book resorts got MUCH better in a hurry. For example, it used to be next to impossible to get summer dates at Glacier Canyon in the Wisconsin Dells without owning there--and even that required effort. Now it's quite a bit easier.

-------
*: Last I knew, the dates did not have to line up exactly; as long as there is some overlap it is fine.

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.

 

[tx911]

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.

If the bar to be cleared is zero negative impact to members, this can never be adequately addressed, nor can walking.

The fix for either one of these will necessarily involve some compromises in order to improve the overall quality of the product.

 

[Brian Noble]

I rented just under 100 points a few years ago, for one or two noght to fill in reservations for existing members.

Many of those might well be outside of the restricted resorts/dates in this hypothetical world, in which case it does not matter. For example, I can imagine implementing this only on certain types of rooms at a resort. (I vaguely recall that Wyndham does this in one or two places, but am not sure about that.)

Plus, nothing would have prevented you from renting those 100 points in one or two transactions. You might have to work a little harder to find the tenants, but then again you only have to find one or two instead of six. And if many of those Members could have solved their problem with one-time use points, then even better.

 

[Genie+]

So what do you suggest?

Commercial Use - Add a checkbox when transferring to MDE that rentals must click to confirm they have a rental contract in place as required by DVC. Simple. Doesn’t bother anybody except the people using DVC for profit. Renters want legitimate reservations, so commercial renters would have a hard time trying to encourage renters to lie about nature of the reservation. By checking if rentals have a contract in place DVC can clearly see who is running a business. No guessing about which reservations are friends/family or commercial use, and for profit businesses will no longer be able to operate under the radar. If an owner never uses certain contracts for anything but rentals? That is NOT personal use.

DVC is a better judge than me though. They have the data to more clearly see where the negative impacts are most severe and/or consequential. They also have a much stronger understanding of the membership base. I think the time has come for DVC to better define what constitutes commercial use. The above system does not make that call, it just removes the grey area where commercial renters can claim they’re giving away 80+% of their points year after year.

 

[Brian Noble]

"You can check that box, but if you'd like to save an extra 5%...."

 

[Brian Noble]

(Anything that depends on the people benefiting from the rental ecosystem to affirmatively do something is not going to work.)

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

So what do you suggest?

I don’t have much else to add to this conversation since it’s been said 49 different ways from dozens of people but this is exhausting. There is literally 12 pages of options and examples people have given here. You might not like them because they don’t help you specifically, but it’s clear it’s something many others want changed. I know you tend to prefer the status quo for most of these “needs change” conversations, but if members on here and those emailing and doing surveys didn’t keep pushing for things to get better (and sometimes worse, before they got better) we’d never see growth in the resorts and parks.

Like you said, not every change will benefit every single person. I personally hate the new LLMP system and much preferred Genie+, and I know I’m probably in the minority and can accept that. The change was worse for me, worse for plenty of guests I’m sure, but it’s the change the greater majority wanted. So maybe this current system is now no longer benefiting the greater majority (it’s hard to accept potentially being in the minority, I totally understand). The changes you see as worse, perhaps many see as better for the membership so every idea doesn’t have to be shot down as a problem, because they’re a problem for you or a few very niche and rare cases people keep bringing up. There’s been dozens of real life examples that have been given of actual problems people have with this current system. I think those should carry more weight in this conversation than a few random hypotheticals.

 

[Genie+]

I would offer one possibility that I've grown to like: Wyndham's Owner Priority dates.

At several resorts, during the most in-demand times of year, an owner can:

• Book whatever they want with themselves as the lead guest
• Book as many other units as they want for their guests traveling at the same time*.
• Book up to two reservations per year for unaccompanied guests.

The limit of two is across all restricted resorts/periods.

For most small-scale owners, this is just fine--we are unlikely to rent more than once or twice a year, so this doesn't matter. It can make things a little complicated if you often send your adult children on vacation without going along, but the solution to that is to add them to one of the deeds/contracts. (Wyndham allows differently-titled properties in the same master account; the owners of "the account" are the union of all of the owners on each property.)

It can even work well for folks who rent more often; they just have to choose times/resorts that are not on the restricted list, and plenty of those exist.

When this plan was implemented, availability at some of the toughest-to-book resorts got MUCH better in a hurry. For example, it used to be next to impossible to get summer dates at Glacier Canyon in the Wisconsin Dells without owning there--and even that required effort. Now it's quite a bit easier.

Also: most of the large-scale Wyndham renters hate this, and many other rank-and-file owners (though not all of them) seem to think it is just fine. That tells me that it's targeted reasonably well.

-------
*: Last I knew, the dates did not have to line up exactly; as long as there is some overlap it is fine.

I would not regret hoping for change if DVC decided to go with something along these lines.