DVC plans to target commercial renters

[Pinnochio]

1st week of December. There are other rooms available, but the SV studio's have been walked for a month.

Yup.....very difficult to get these Resort/std view rooms at BWV....oh well....i'll keep trying

 

[lowlight]

Giving owners more flexibility to use their points within the program instead of renting to get the cash, certainly is one way to potentially reduce the rental martlet….

Something is happening behind the scenes for sure. Whatever it is requires numerous steps to do. Some owner knows what’s up and isn’t talking, if you consider the amount of AUL and various other resort contracts popping up all of a sudden on aggregator resale sites to be suspicious. As in most business, the big fish will get out unharmed and by the time most renters see what’s happening it will be too late to sell their contracts. I don’t think reservations are being canceled because we would have heard about it loudly.

 

[JM735]

This is an opinion, and a valid one, as it doesn’t affect you.

I've been affected when I've been unable to get my desired reservation at 11 months. I accept this reality and pivot to other options.

The same way the contract doesn’t guarantee room size or view, it DOES guarantee that commercial* renting is prohibited. *What defines commercial is up for debate on these boards only, the act itself is definitely prohibited and it’s not an opinion you can disagree on.

I didn't claim commercial renting is not prohibited; I stated that I don't believe it causes harm. I defer to DVC to define, monitor, and enforce rental compliance. Since I do not believe this scenario is negatively impacting membership, I'm not compelled to challenge DVC on how they currently handle commercial renting.

 

[xdan0920]

I didn't claim commercial renting is not prohibited; I stated that I don't believe it causes harm.

So, just to be clear, and this is nothing against you specifically.

You don't think, having thousands of Studios booked and listed for rent. AKA, no one is currently staying in these rooms, they are being held in case someone does want to stay, by people trying to make a buck... Is harming normal members who could otherwise have a chance to book those rooms for trips they want to take themselves?

To put it another way....

Let's say I am at a Quick Serve, I start saving tables, then renting them out to diners. Would you have an issue with this? I mean, someone is going to use the table anyway right? So it doesn't really effect you...

 

[ehh]

When you say not spec, do you mean you picked room type and view and dates and then they booked it for you (quite possibly with distressed points)?

Correct.

 

[Nabas]

If the rooms don’t come back and the waitlist doesn’t fill it means that demand is the culprit…now, that doesn’t means that some who got the rooms were not walkers because walkers eventually stop.

But, in my case, I obviously had dates that did include at least one person walking who kept going because of how quick it came through….and this happens to me every year for first week of December.

Now, different story for the second week…I usually need to do more stalking because the rooms don’t come back which means the rooms are being held by someone who at least wants those dates.

I definitely think that at BWV, point charts for December for studios should be closer in value to make the competition between the views more equal.

But, nothing is going to ever be perfect…when demand is this high.

But how does the waitlist work?

Disney has mucked around with this at least once.

I think it used to be real-time, meaning as soon as you released a room it immediately was checked against existing waitlist requests before being released to other DVC members.

But several years ago, I recall Disney announcing a change that this was only checked once per day, meaning other DVC members had potentially hours to sneak in and “steal” a reservation.

More recently, it seems like waitlisting is acting the original way but I don’t recall seeing an announcement for this.

How does the waitlist tool now work?

 

[xdan0920]

How does the waitlist tool now work?

For me...

When I am working my butt off to get a room, I am able to stalk my way into a room before my waitlist ever comes through.

 

[Sandisw]

You can’t leave us hanging like that!

Since you asked, but with the caveat that it is predicated on the belief that DVC only moves in ways to fix things when they can find a way to make it benefit for them or that what is happening is impacting them.

DVC has always had a "don't ask, don't tell" motto with transfers and making the rules more broad for owners to transfer points seems to me that they will continue that policy.

What better optics to make it appear they have done something to curtail the rental market, then give owners a way to move points around between themselves instead of always renting.....while at the same time, give owners an opportunity to use points for other things....like the AP..

Obviously, it might not be as lucrative, but hey, if it keeps your actions below the radar, why not? Fewer owners who choose to offer points for rent means that fewer owners may choose to use brokers.....

Keeps the "trading" between owners, reduces the number of rentals that may be out there, and at the same time, allows DVC to say "see, we have made move behind the scences" to go after those who we felt were in violation.

While at the same time, giving owners a chance to use points in more ways, allows them to take advantage of the market too. The offer to use points for an AP is just the start.

Because of the way the rules are written for transfers, it puts the power back into DVC's hands to go after that when and if they see fit, but given that they sell OTU, and have the ability to not enforce all aspects of the contract, it becomes a win win.

What it doesn't do, is require DVC to change any rules in the process, and doesn't help owners who are concerned about the room availabity because more might go to DVC...potentially taking more rooms away from point bookings... but it keeps the points moving around the system between "owners" who then trade them out.

Example.....you have extra points...another owner wants to trade them for a cruise...instead of dealing with rentals and possibly triggering that review.....you offer them for a reduced rate to another owner who has used their own points to trade and buys the transfer to replenish.....prevents DVC from even accusing the owner of using the transferred points for commercial because those are the ones they use for their own vacations.

Another example - you take an owner who is in it to make some money.....just find another owner who wants a lot of points, strip your contract of a lot of points....and then do it all again in a few years.....because transfer are based on UY so pretty simple to accomplish....no more buy, strip, and flip immediately...may down the road? Sure, but by that point, harder for DVC to go after you, even if they wanted to and maybe all DVC wants to do is slow down the process....

Now, that is not to say that they don't crackdown on LLCs extra, but what better way to turn this whole situation around for a benefit to them while at the same time, making programs that will be well received by the membership.

I know that the negative to this is that DVC would have more inventory to rent, but it could also give them a lot more points to sell as OTU points instead.....given the move that the MMB program allows for them at BOGO free...to recapture the money.

There are already people here on the DIS, including myself that may now buy OTU points because they are less expensive that haven't in the past.

There is just too much that has happened to make me think that it is not all connected in someway...and the biggest benefit to DVC could be that by having more owners trade points, the more points they have to take popular rooms for maximum rental potential.

Hence, the whole highly conspiracy idea....nothing more than that.....

 

[Judique]

Did you not waitlist? I put in a waitlist for my second room the morning of December 3rd for Dec 3rd to 5th to replace the PV I had and it filled in three days! I picked up the 2nd on my own.

If you have a waitlist, keep up hope

This used to happen at BWV. If you missed your day, put in a waitlist. Last year I had a 11 month waitlist for a December night. It never filled. I chalked that up to the refurb.

We will see how this year goes as I have a waitlist in until 7 days before to beef up what I got already. But, it's for Dec 4 and it's already past 3 days so I'm not having as much luck as you. Not a standard view either but a garden view. I might just book it cash (only from Disney) if it comes available. Hey, it could be there now, I haven't looked.

I actually have the 4th at BCV and I'll be holding onto it until or if my night comes. I've been working both resorts but don't have enough available BCV points to make a whole week, so split stay it will probably be. If I had this to do over again I'd buy more BCV points at the price I paid when the resort first opened.

 

[Judique]

For me...

When I am working my butt off to get a room, I am able to stalk my way into a room before my waitlist ever comes through.

This is and has been pretty much my experience but sometimes a waitlist does come through. I just never count on it and stalk, stalk, stalk.

 

[Sandisw]

So, just to be clear, and this is nothing against you specifically.

You don't think, having thousands of Studios booked and listed for rent. AKA, no one is currently staying in these rooms, they are being held in case someone does want to stay, by people trying to make a buck... Is harming normal members who could otherwise have a chance to book those rooms for trips they want to take themselves?

To put it another way....

Let's say I am at a Quick Serve, I start saving tables, then renting them out to diners. Would you have an issue with this? I mean, someone is going to use the table anyway right? So it doesn't really effect you...

How is it any different than me holding rooms for early December every year for both the first and second week of December knowing I will only go one of those weeks? I am allowed to make as many reservations as I want for personal use...

So, my holding them until I cancel out the ones in the week I decide I won't go is still blocking out another owner whose plans are set already.....yet none of them are for rent....some may say I am selfish, and don't like that I do it, but certainly cant say that my blocking the rooms for personal use on spec should be stopped.

And that is why we have said we hold a different mindset......and why we simply do not get bothered by whether an owner rents or doesn't rent....its up to DVC to define what makes someone using the membership against the rules and my personal threshold for that is high while I get others want that threhold much lower.

ETA: And, this has nothing to do with owners expecting DVC to enforce the rules when it comes to going over the line...

 

[JM735]

So, just to be clear, and this is nothing against you specifically.

You don't think, having thousands of Studios booked and listed for rent. AKA, no one is currently staying in these rooms, they are being held in case someone does want to stay, by people trying to make a buck... Is harming normal members who could otherwise have a chance to book those rooms for trips they want to take themselves?

To put it another way....

Let's say I am at a Quick Serve, I start saving tables, then renting them out to diners. Would you have an issue with this? I mean, someone is going to use the table anyway right? So it doesn't really effect you...

That’s correct; I don’t have an issue with it. Just as I don’t have an issue with members who cancel reservations for most any reason. That’s part of the flexibility I appreciate with DVC. I have four concurrent reservations for a family trip later this year. Since there is some uncertainty about who will be able to travel and when, I will definitely cancel one and possibly up to three of the reservations. I will ensure that is done more than 31 days out, but one of the studios will likely be released less than 60 days out.

This is a slightly different scenario, but with over 200k members, even if a very small percentage is holding reservations that may or may not be cancelled or changed later, it’s the same situation. I’ve taken the position that intent shouldn’t matter. If an owner booked the room with their points, whether it is owner-occupied, guest-occupied, renter-occupied, left empty for an early morning arrival/late afternoon departure, or even cancelled, it's an acceptable use of points.

For your quick-service example, I don’t think it completely relates since charging for something that is free doesn’t fully correlate, but I see the example you’re drawing. While I get mildly annoyed when people take up residency at a table well before food is ordered, let alone ready (if they are even buying food from that QS), I don’t think that is something Disney should add rules to address, and/or cast members to police. Open seating is open seating and I accept I may be out of luck.

 

[Sandisw]

But how does the waitlist work?

Disney has mucked around with this at least once.

I think it used to be real-time, meaning as soon as you released a room it immediately was checked against existing waitlist requests before being released to other DVC members.

But several years ago, I recall Disney announcing a change that this was only checked once per day, meaning other DVC members had potentially hours to sneak in and “steal” a reservation.

More recently, it seems like waitlisting is acting the original way but I don’t recall seeing an announcement for this.

How does the waitlist tool now work?

From all the modifying and changing and waitlisting I do, it definitely runs more than once a day and my guess it does run a lot but may not be perfect.

Disney never announced anything about it......I just think that was speculation on peoples part. I have canceled rooms for more than one night and gone back and only some of them are there and others are not....tells me the waitlist grabbed them.

I have canceled nights and immediately checked...I always do just to see if I can find a pattern, and none come back....sometimes its been multiple nights and sometimes just one.

What I have discovered is that canceling one night at a time tends to put them back immediately more often than when I cancel multiple night reservations.

I have gambled with this when I wanted to move a reservation from one of my memberships to another and things were booked....I made sure there was at least availability somewhere so that if I lost it, I'd still be able to book the back up.

Canceled one night at a time, and then immediately went in to grab with the other membership....it has worked many times, but there are times when it did not....I lost a 1 bedroom at RIV in a RV this way....the only plus is that I ended up getting it back about a month later when the waitlist filled.

Now, my waitlist was for just two nights....and the shorter the waitlist, the easier it is to fill....but this is a pattern that I have happen the first week of December every year with my rooms at RIV.....if I get shut out of RV, I book preferred and then waitlist them....and they always come through pretty quickly...which implies to me that walkers were at play when I got initally shut out.

The second week of December does not.....I end up getting more of those via stalking, or adjusting my dates, then by waitlist, but waitlist does come through at some point....

So, in my experience, its hit or miss, but so far, I am at 100% for rooms being filled via waitlist when I put it in right at the 11 month window, 8 am, when I get shut out of the least expensive view at both RIV... when its a situation where it seems walking is happening.....when they don't come back....like right now for second week of December, or VGF for both weeks, then I know its walkers who have gotten their actual dates, or those who got them for their actual dates without walking....but regardless, its demand as to why my waitlists don't fill quickly....when it is not, then they always do....

 

[Genie+]

For your quick-service example, I don’t think it completely relates since charging for something that is free doesn’t fully correlate, but I see the example you’re drawing. While I get mildly annoyed when people take up residency at a table well before food is ordered, let alone ready (if they are even buying food from that QS), I don’t think that is something Disney should add rules to address, and/or cast members to police. Open seating is open seating and I accept I may be out of luck.

Just for the record WDW does address this when things get out of hand, and posts CMs telling people ‘the rule’ - you need to get your food before taking a table. I’ve come across this many times.

It makes sense to me. Even if it’s annoying when my party can’t take a rest at a QS table, it is much more annoying to buy a meal and have nowhere to eat it. Or your family had planned to eat mid-afternoon and a one hour storm blows in, and all of a sudden there’s not one QS table available in the park. It makes sense for CMs to step in at that point and only let people with food trays take any newly opened tables.

 

[nalababybear]

That’s correct; I don’t have an issue with it. Just as I don’t have an issue with members who cancel reservations for most any reason. That’s part of the flexibility I appreciate with DVC. I have four concurrent reservations for a family trip later this year. Since there is some uncertainty about who will be able to travel and when, I will definitely cancel one and possibly up to three of the reservations. I will ensure that is done more than 31 days out, but one of the studios will likely be released less than 60 days out.

This is a slightly different scenario, but with over 200k members, even if a very small percentage is holding reservations that may or may not be cancelled or changed later, it’s the same situation. I’ve taken the position that intent shouldn’t matter. If an owner booked the room with their points, whether it is owner-occupied, guest-occupied, renter-occupied, left empty for an early morning arrival/late afternoon departure, or even cancelled, it's an acceptable use of points.

For your quick-service example, I don’t think it completely relates since charging for something that is free doesn’t fully correlate, but I see the example you’re drawing. While I get mildly annoyed when people take up residency at a table well before food is ordered, let alone ready (if they are even buying food from that QS), I don’t think that is something Disney should add rules to address, and/or cast members to police. Open seating is open seating and I accept I may be out of luck.

This. It's the convenience that makes this timeshare program unique and it works out as there's a significant demand for Disney onsitr properties that will support the timeshare model even with the cancellations.

The only way it doesn't work for the bottom line is the overall demand starts waning and hurting occupancy rates at the moderate offerings which it appears to started to.

Disney wants DVC to succeed as it's a great cash cow. Making new rules and processes that suppresses enthusiasm for the product sales....not going to happen.

Disney only will make changes if it helps their bottom line.

 

[Sandisw]

Just for the record WDW does address this when things get out of hand, and posts CMs telling people ‘the rule’ - you need to get your food before taking a table. I’ve come across this many times.

It makes sense to me. Even if it’s annoying when my party can’t take a rest at a QS table, it is much more annoying to buy a meal and have nowhere to eat it. Or your family had planned to eat mid-afternoon and a one hour storm blows in, and all of a sudden there’s not one QS table available in the park. It makes sense for CMs to step in at that point and only let people with food trays take any newly opened tables.

I think the point they were making, though, is that this situation is not the same as DVC where both owners are allowed to book as many rooms as they want, and use them for whom they want within the rules....

The problem that was being discussed....at least the way I read it...was about the impact on availability and not on whether someone is or is not renting outside the rules.

Seeing a whole bunch of confirmed reservations doesn't both some of us because we don't see rooms booked to offer to renters, on their face, as any different than an owner booking rooms and holding them for themselves, even when they know they will cancel them later on.

That is why I keep saying, its just a different mindset on how we view DVC and the program......I get others are bothered by it and want a system that should allow owners to have priority for rooms over those that are not owners...and can't understand why all of us don't feel that way....its because we have a different view on how it works. Not anything more than that.

 

[Genie+]

I think the point they were making, though, is that this situation is not the same as DVC where both owners are allowed to book as many rooms as they want, and use them for whom they want within the rules....

The problem that was being discussed....at least the way I read it...was about the impact on availability and not on whether someone is or is not renting outside the rules.

Seeing a whole bunch of confirmed reservations doesn't both some of us because we don't see rooms booked to offer to renters, on their face, as any different than an owner booking rooms and holding them for themselves, even when they know they will cancel them later on.

That is why I keep saying, its just a different mindset on how we view DVC and the program......I get others are bothered by it and want a system that should allow owners to have priority for rooms over those that are not owners...and can't understand why all of us don't feel that way....its because we have a different view on how it works. Not anything more than that.

It goes to the reasoning of impact and when worthwhile for management to step in.

While some people may have not had an issue with being unable to get a table to eat the food they just bought, that’s not the same as saying there is no problem.

Whether it is tables, DAS, commercial renting… if/when something is having an outsized impact then it is on management to weigh - because they can see things more clearly than we ever could.

 

[Brian Noble]

It turns it that it does not matter if some individual owners don't have a problem with rentals. Enough do that DVC has taken notice of it---to the point that they discussed it at several different condo association meetings, in response to Member questions.

Time will tell what that "taken notice" translates into.

 

[lowlight]

Disney wants DVC to succeed as it's a great cash cow. Making new rules and processes that suppresses enthusiasm for the product sales....not going to happen.

Disney only will make changes if it helps their bottom line.

I understand you are championing the pro-rental position, but you can't keep saying new rules and processes will suppress the enthusiasm for product sales as if it's a fact. I would have already added on if renting wasn't such a viable option. When I ran out of points last year, I rented for basically what dues cost from someone who apparently needed to get rid of their points. Why would I ever buy a new contract when I can rent that low? The more renters, the cheaper rentals will be. The cheaper rentals are, the less incentive to purchase resale or direct, OR to rent a moderate from Disney direct. You vastly overestimate how many people care about being able to rent or renting for profit if you think it will suppress sales. If anything, it will suppress sales from the exact kind of people DVC doesn't need any more of- timeshare landlords.

 

[Sandisw]

It goes to the reasoning of impact and when worthwhile for management to step in.

While some people may have not had an issue with being unable to get a table to eat the food they just bought, that’s not the same as saying there is no problem.

Whether it is tables, DAS, commercial renting… if/when something is having an outsized impact then it is on management to weigh - because they can see things more clearly than we ever could.

But let me ask…if all of those 2500 confirmed rentals are booked on a different memberships, by different owners, does it still fit this situation?

And maybe that is why DVC said “it’s not common practice”? They have the data, the number of reservations in the names of others that exist on each membership. Maybe just maybe the majority of owners memberships are renting within reason

If you have 100k memberships, and only 10% have activity that is seen as commercial, thst means 90% are fine.

That doesn’t mean there are no rentals occurring in that 90% but each of those is within acceptable levels.

If every membership rents just two a year, which I think a lot of DVC owners would support as okay, that would put over 200k rentals on the market every year.

And that is why we view it differently.