DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[New Mouse]

If Disney backs down from this attempt, I bet they will realize that they will just have to get more creative in the future to accomplish their end goal.

Getting more creative is just creating dvc 2 and splitting the properties going forward.

 

[lovethesun12]

May I ask how people went about requesting callbacks? I wrote them (link on dvc website) about a week ago and asked to have two specific questions I had answered, but I didn't receive a response.

 

[Minniemoo15]

May I ask how people went about requesting callbacks? I wrote them (link on dvc website) about a week ago and asked to have two specific questions I had answered, but I didn't receive a response.

I googled Terri Schultz’s email address and sent her one directly. From there someone contacted me to set up a call.

My parents used the form with their concerns and never heard back either.

 

[drusba]

Adding a little more to posts I have made above. As I noted there is nothing in the POS documents that says DVC/DVCM can change base years once the base year is created, can create point charts with more or different seasons than the original one created, or create new point charts that result in the significant rise in total points per year applicable to reserving the resorts.

As written, the POS documents, including Exhibit A to the Master Cotenancy Agreement, the DVC Membership agreement, and the Product Understanding Checklist, allow: (a) the initial creation of seasons by DVD, but nothing says those seasons and number of applicable days in a season can be changed thereafter; (b) at about the time the resort goes on sale, DVCM is to choose a 365-day base year which distributes all the Home Resort Vacation Points throughout all the rooms and days so that the total points for the year equal the total number of ownership interests as represented by points so that the use of all points in the year would fill every room; (c) DVCM has the power to raise or lower points for any given use days thereafter in a calendar year only if it offsets such change with an equal lowering or raising of points for other use days; (d) the total points from calendar year to calendar year cannot be changed from the total in the base year except for changes naturally caused by changes in the calendar (which would allow points to be added only for such things as the extra day in leap year, when a year has more weekend days than another year, or when a year has a high point season with an extra weekend day).

The point to add to the above. is Fl Stats sec. 721.07(5)(a)4, which is in the part of the statute which provides the information a developer must put in the POS documents, and reads:

"If ownership or use of the timeshare plan is based on a point system, a statement indicating the circumstances by which the point values may change, the extent of such changes, and the person or entity responsible for the changes."

The statute thus requires that the developer specifically set out in the POS documents the circumstances that may allow for a change in point values and the extent to which such values may be changed. These kinds of provisions in a statute are generally construed as exclusionary, i.e., only changes expressly set out in the POS can happen, and unless the change is expressly allowed by the terms of the POS, it cannot be done. Thus, it provides another argument for why DVCM cannot (a) change from the 5-season to 7-season chart, (b) change the base year, or (c) or do any act at all to raise total points in any calendar year, such as adopting the 7-season point chart that relies on the annual change of the Easter date to raise total points in many calendar years.

 

[sethschroeder]

I decided to not wait any longer to jump back in. I had a call back in December and was going to wait until next years point charts to see the changes.

I reached out via the email form to request the base year information for both Riviera and Boardwalk. I had outlined that total points don't seem to match between 2021 and 2022 and I was unable to find information on what the base year was. So I requested that they provide the base year information to me.

 

[dismedvc]

I just received an unsolicited call asking if I wanted to join a class action suit against DVC management. The basis of the suit is that DVC management is not acting in the best interest of the members. They said there are meetings scheduled in Austin Texas this weekend to provide the details.

At this point, I am not inclined to join the class action, but I might attend the meeting out of curiosity.

 

[JGINPL]

I just received an unsolicited call asking if I wanted to join a class action suit against DVC management. The basis of the suit is that DVC management is not acting in the best interest of the members. They said there are meetings scheduled in Austin Texas this weekend to provide the details.

At this point, I am not inclined to join the class action, but I might attend the meeting out of curiosity.

Very interesting. Must have some interest from members in Texas if they are reaching out to people. This may get the attention of Disney

 

[Mumof4mice]

I had my conference call today with two DVC managers, from Regulatory Affairs and Club Strategy (the department responsible for creating the point charts). It confirmed my impression from my last call with Chang, that these phone meetings are merely surveys with uncompensated volunteers.

I was pleasantly surprised that someone from Club Strategy was participating. Unfortunately, the conversation yielded no more information than others have reported.

Club Strategy (CS) opened with "the point charts were designed for member's benefit", with the reasonings -
1. The point increase is a mere "rounding error" compared with traded points and breakage points. DVCM isn't trying to get more breakage.

2. Nevertheless this minor increase will creating a "vast improvement" to availability; a net benefit to members.

3. DVCM is working for members' benefits. Members agreed to let DVCM decide and vote for our interest.

4. DVCM is legally obliged to balance demand.

4. Member satisfaction has been dropping. The charts will improve availability. By 2023 we will see the benefit of the improved availability.

Regarding the Base Year, Regulatory Affairs (RA) offered -
- It's a common misunderstanding.
- Base year is only used to determine the number of points that can be sold. After which there is no further selection of Base Year as such.
- Point charts are created in a way that best balances demand
- The total points will differ each year base on normal calendar changes
- 2035 is not important, just a year that the total points will happen to match declared points.

This was a similar explanation given to @zavandor, with the post-audience tested, tweaked emphasis on "the point increase is all for your benefit".

I asked if the stated intention of balancing demand is the goal of the point chart creation, why not further reduce point requirement in September, for example? Why couldn't demand balancing be achieved, while keeping total points as close to declared points as possible?

CS offered several explanations -

1. Offsetting the increase by reducing point requirement in certain categories/seasons, would make those rooms too popular.

2. They also want to balance across across all the resorts, not making certain PVB rooms too cheap compared to other resorts, for example.

3. He reiterated that the increase is so minor, they couldn't allocate "fractional points" to balance demand.

4. Members complaining costs more than what those points are worth. (Sorry guys, you'll be billed for that hour!)

While CS went on about why points couldn't be fully offset, RA chimed in with the standard lines: "points will change due to normal seasonal variations, but an increase is always offset by decrease elsewhere". Err, excuse me? Are you hearing what your colleague is saying? Luckily DVC staff have impeccable manners that encourages politeness in kind... I might have used some colourful language in my pandemic-induced curmudgeonly state otherwise.

CS did concede that DVCM has heard member feedback, and that in 2023 the total points will "head back in the right direction". I thanked them for taking my feedback, even if I didn't accept the justification offered.

 

[Minniemoo15]

I had my conference call today with two DVC managers, from Regulatory Affairs and Club Strategy (the department responsible for creating the point charts). It confirmed my impression from my last call with Chang, that these phone meetings are merely surveys with uncompensated volunteers.

I was pleasantly surprised that someone from Club Strategy was participating. Unfortunately, the conversation yielded no more information than others have reported.

Club Strategy (CS) opened with "the point charts were designed for member's benefit", with the reasonings -
1. The point increase is a mere "rounding error" compared with traded points and breakage points. DVCM isn't trying to get more breakage.

2. Nevertheless this minor increase will creating a "vast improvement" to availability; a net benefit to members.

3. DVCM is working for members' benefits. Members agreed to let DVCM decide and vote for our interest.

4. DVCM is legally obliged to balance demand.

4. Member satisfaction has been dropping. The charts will improve availability. By 2023 we will see the benefit of the improved availability.

Regarding the Base Year, Regulatory Affairs (RA) offered -
- It's a common misunderstanding.
- Base year is only used to determine the number of points that can be sold. After which there is no further selection of Base Year as such.
- Point charts are created in a way that best balances demand
- The total points will differ each year base on normal calendar changes
- 2035 is not important, just a year that the total points will happen to match declared points.

This was a similar explanation given to @zavandor, with the post-audience tested, tweaked emphasis on "the point increase is all for your benefit".

I asked if the stated intention of balancing demand is the goal of the point chart creation, why not further reduce point requirement in September, for example? Why couldn't demand balancing be achieved, while keeping total points as close to declared points as possible?

CS offered several explanations -

1. Offsetting the increase by reducing point requirement in certain categories/seasons, would make those rooms too popular.

2. They also want to balance across across all the resorts, not making certain PVB rooms too cheap compared to other resorts, for example.

3. He reiterated that the increase is so minor, they couldn't allocate "fractional points" to balance demand.

4. Members complaining costs more than what those points are worth. (Sorry guys, you'll be billed for that hour!)

While CS went on about why points couldn't be fully offset, RA chimed in with the standard lines: "points will change due to normal seasonal variations, but an increase is always offset by decrease elsewhere". Err, excuse me? Are you hearing what your colleague is saying? Luckily DVC staff have impeccable manners that encourages politeness in kind... I might have used some colourful language in my pandemic-induced curmudgeonly state otherwise.

CS did concede that DVCM has heard member feedback, and that in 2023 the total points will "head back in the right direction". I thanked them for taking my feedback, even if I didn't accept the justification offered.

Thank you for recapping your call. I am finding it hard to keep track of their narrative - it seems to shift with each call. I have a call next week and this will help me prepare my questions.

 

[EM Lawrence]

So I'm confused. Their position seems to be that the point increases are both so minor as to only be a "rounding error" and yet significant enough that availability will be vastly improved to the point of causing an increase in member satisfaction. Makes total sense.

It is interesting that member satisfaction is decreasing.

 

[Cabius]

So I'm confused. Their position seems to be that the point increases are both so minor as to only be a "rounding error" and yet significant enough that availability will be vastly improved to the point of causing an increase in member satisfaction. Makes total sense.

It is interesting that member satisfaction is decreasing.

The good things are huge, and the bad things are so tiny you wouldn’t even notice, and this is all a great change for members’ benefit, and also things will be “headed back in the right direction” next year, and Oceana has *always* been at war with Eurasia, and Big Brother looking hella fiiiinnnneeee

 

[Mumof4mice]

So I'm confused. Their position seems to be that the point increases are both so minor as to only be a "rounding error" and yet significant enough that availability will be vastly improved to the point of causing an increase in member satisfaction. Makes total sense.

It is interesting that member satisfaction is decreasing.

Hahaha, I asked for clarification regarding exactly that. The answer was "trust us, it will".

 

[Eldon32]

So I'm confused. Their position seems to be that the point increases are both so minor as to only be a "rounding error" and yet significant enough that availability will be vastly improved to the point of causing an increase in member satisfaction. Makes total sense.

It is interesting that member satisfaction is decreasing.

Surely if the change is "so small" they wouldn't mind increasing the breakage cap to accommodate the point inflation; for the member's benefit of course.

 

[EM Lawrence]

If they want to know how to improve member satisfaction, I have a million dollar suggestion for them, and I won't even charge for it. Get rid of the resale restrictions on Riviera. Leave the point charts alone. Mission accomplished.

 

[cm8]

Hahaha, I asked for clarification regarding exactly that. The answer was "trust us, it will".

In other words, We may be in the wrong but we will right it because we don’t want any problems. And also, it’s your fault we set the chart like that because you all gave us permission to manage and act on your behalf. Sounds like it’s about time we hire new management

 

[Keetchino]

I have read this thread, however, I blew my internal math budget for the week trying to understand GameStop.
Is the point of all this basically that they moved points from season A which has 10 days, to season B which has 20 days, and therefore the extra 1 point per day that used to be 10 points is now 20 points?
I want to be helpful, and am willing to register my discontent. Is there a text we should be using, and to whom should it be directed? I own at OKW, if that's relevant.

Saaaaame! I've always despised math, and now whenever I see a bunch of calculations my eyes glaze over. All I know is that a big selling point with us for DVC was (to the effect of) "If one area increases then another area will equally decrease! There can never be additional points added!" and now I'm seeing all these extra points appearing with a billion excuses as to why it is. Something definitely doesn't smell right, but I would never be able to hold my own with all the legal language in an actual phone call with someone.

 

[lovethesun12]

4. Members complaining costs more than what those points are worth. (Sorry guys, you'll be billed for that hour!)

Had to laugh out loud at this one. So they develop a convoluted points chart, give various different answers (including the most ridiculous one that people would basically prefer to use more points rather than them lower them) and then guilt trip people who call to question them? I'm having trouble seeing the pure intentions.

 

[New Mouse]

I had my conference call today with two DVC managers, from Regulatory Affairs and Club Strategy (the department responsible for creating the point charts). It confirmed my impression from my last call with Chang, that these phone meetings are merely surveys with uncompensated volunteers.

I was pleasantly surprised that someone from Club Strategy was participating. Unfortunately, the conversation yielded no more information than others have reported.

Club Strategy (CS) opened with "the point charts were designed for member's benefit", with the reasonings -
1. The point increase is a mere "rounding error" compared with traded points and breakage points. DVCM isn't trying to get more breakage.

2. Nevertheless this minor increase will creating a "vast improvement" to availability; a net benefit to members.

3. DVCM is working for members' benefits. Members agreed to let DVCM decide and vote for our interest.

4. DVCM is legally obliged to balance demand.

4. Member satisfaction has been dropping. The charts will improve availability. By 2023 we will see the benefit of the improved availability.

Regarding the Base Year, Regulatory Affairs (RA) offered -
- It's a common misunderstanding.
- Base year is only used to determine the number of points that can be sold. After which there is no further selection of Base Year as such.
- Point charts are created in a way that best balances demand
- The total points will differ each year base on normal calendar changes
- 2035 is not important, just a year that the total points will happen to match declared points.

This was a similar explanation given to @zavandor, with the post-audience tested, tweaked emphasis on "the point increase is all for your benefit".

I asked if the stated intention of balancing demand is the goal of the point chart creation, why not further reduce point requirement in September, for example? Why couldn't demand balancing be achieved, while keeping total points as close to declared points as possible?

CS offered several explanations -

1. Offsetting the increase by reducing point requirement in certain categories/seasons, would make those rooms too popular.

2. They also want to balance across across all the resorts, not making certain PVB rooms too cheap compared to other resorts, for example.

3. He reiterated that the increase is so minor, they couldn't allocate "fractional points" to balance demand.

4. Members complaining costs more than what those points are worth. (Sorry guys, you'll be billed for that hour!)

While CS went on about why points couldn't be fully offset, RA chimed in with the standard lines: "points will change due to normal seasonal variations, but an increase is always offset by decrease elsewhere". Err, excuse me? Are you hearing what your colleague is saying? Luckily DVC staff have impeccable manners that encourages politeness in kind... I might have used some colourful language in my pandemic-induced curmudgeonly state otherwise.

CS did concede that DVCM has heard member feedback, and that in 2023 the total points will "head back in the right direction". I thanked them for taking my feedback, even if I didn't accept the justification offered.

So add these 2 to the list of people who should be fired for negligence. Thats what I gained from that call.

 

[New Mouse]

Had to laugh out loud at this one. So they develop a convoluted points chart, give various different answers (including the most ridiculous one that people would basically prefer to use more points rather than them lower them) and then guilt trip people who call to question them? I'm having trouble seeing the pure intentions.

This honestly seems to be the DVC standard practice lately. I got blamed for not proactively canceling my reservation when dvc wasnt proactively stating their closure intentions.

 

[New Mouse]

Can the next person who has a call find out why they arent substantially reducing the cost of the Poly Bungalows, seeing how they arent overly popular and they are apparently allowed to fix this without raising the studio prices, which we all assumed wasnt allowed?

If they are acting in members best interests that should be a thing, no?