DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

Maybe I'm an outlier, but I've never thought Disney's customer service was particularly good. It's usually very cheerful, but it's never been very effective. Disney as a hotelier has never even been at the level of one of the better business-class brands like a Westin---at least, not in my experience.

Disney is a business that sells happiness. That's not the same as "Disney wants me, personally, to be happy," but a lot of folks conflate the two especially when they are newer customers. Inevitably, something happens which shines a light on the difference, and for many that is a significant point of disillusionment. But, it was always an illusion---albeit a very good one.

DVC was a high touch personal service model, for example ive been in professional services in the networking space i’m VERY technically skilled yet my job is more reliant on soft skills and my ‘real’ job is to reassure large customers that we love them and value their business and to take any critical issues to senior leadership.

DVC has maintained its value because of its one time commitment to customer service and dealing fairly with the members lose that and its just another timeshare
 
I will check out that documentary. Thanks.
Today, there is also the added social justice agenda of large corporation CEOs that confuses what a company’s purpose really is and seems to put customer experience on the back burner.

Think about how the veneer of ‘wokeness’ enables a sociopath. A real wolf in sheep’s clothing scenario
 

Steering the Safari Trek back to topic.....

-- If DVC did (does) not change the total points required to reserve from the current higher amount, would members be assessed per point according to the "points to reserve" chart amount?

Not that I'm advocating for DVC to keep 2022 point chart as-is, since I do think it's reasonable and advisable in good faith with the contracts to change it, but I'm just thinking about other impacts:

IF annual assessments are divided by the number of points required to reserve then,
On one hand: Having a greater number of points to divide the total assessment would mean a lesser dollar amount to pay per point.
On the other hand: If these points are significantly inflated beyond what was actually purchased by owners, then there will be a significant number of point that will go without being paid- cause there isn't anyone or entity attached to those points.

IF annual assessments are divided by the number of points sold to owners then,
there is no direct association between the numer of points required to reserve and any significant point inflation would not impact the annual assessment per point paid to maintain the property, etc.

I'm just thinking outloud, and may be incorrect about how the annual assessments/ per point payment process occurs. I welcome correction or clarification.


(Repost below)
I'm still processing the DVC Fan Show that went up this morning. I know I have thoughts, but generally I prefer to sit with my initial impression to see what I resonated with, what I might have missed, what aspects have impacted a prior point of view... etc. Thank you for your work on this.
:cutie:
 
Think about how the veneer of ‘wokeness’ enables a sociopath. A real wolf in sheep’s clothing scenario
Right?! The “wokeness” today is insane!

People that once championed corporate voice (see Citizens United vs. FEC) are suddenly triggered when they don’t like what that corporate voice has to say and are suddenly “woke” to seeing the corporate malfeasance!

Where does the madness end?!
 
They did thi when they
When one reviews the key POS documents -- the exhibit to the Master Co-Tenancy Agreement, the DVC Membership Agreement and Product Understanding Checklist, one should conclude: (a) DVD, at the time the resort first goes on sale, creates a seasonal point chart with the seasons and days of the year within each season in that point chart and that is used to create the total ownership interests and total points applicable to the entire resort; (b) DVCM, the management company, then finishes that process by spreading total points among the rooms and days of the year to create a base-year point chart in which total points needed to reserve every room in the resort for every night of the resort in the 365-day base year equal the total points applicable to all ownership interests; (c) thereafter the total points to reserve all rooms in any calendar year may be higher than those in the base year only to the extent that such results from the natural changes in the calendar from year to year; (d) neither DVD nor DVCM are given any power at all to change the seasons or days within a season, to create a new base year after one is already in place, or do any acts which would raise total points to reserve all rooms in any calendar year above those in the base year; (e) once the base year is created when the resort goes on sale, only DVCM thereafter has any power to change the points needed to reserve any room in any given night to a higher or lower number, but that power is expressly limited by the requirement that any increase (or decrease) for any modified nights must be offset by an equal decrease (or increase) in other nights, i.e., DVCM's sole power to change points is limited to doing an act which cannot itself result in an increase or decrease in total points for the year.

In other words, DVC, DVCM, and DVD lack any power to create new point charts with new seasons, and any increase in total points in a calendar year above the base year can occur only as a result of the natural changes in the annual calendars, not as a result of any specific act committed by a DVC entity. Those rules were followed until the 7-season point charts were created (although one attempt was made to possibly violate the rules when DVC tried to create new point charts, later withdrawn after members objected, for 2020 that raised points for studios and 1BRs almost year-round). Before the existence of the 7-season point charts, total points in a calendar year were at times somewhat greater than those in the base year because either (a) it was leap year which added points for Feb 29 since the base year was a 365-day year, or (b) some years have one more weekend day than other years, and some years have more weekend days than other years in the higher point seasons, which resulted in points for the calendar year to be higher than the base year.

Mentioned above is that the change in the Easter dates in the 5-season chart resulted in raising points in many years in the past. That is untrue. The two Easter weeks moved annually as Easter moved in March and April but those two weeks were always in the highest point (premier) season and thus, as far as those two weeks go, the movement of the Easter date did not change the annual total. Moreover, all days in March and April that came before or after those two Easter weeks were always in "magic" season, having the same point per night point totals regardless of when Easter occurred. The result was that the annual change in the Easter date never actually changed total points per year.

With the 7-season point charts, DVCM got clever in trying to find a way to have total points in most calendar years be higher than those in a base year, which would then create the opportunity to have more open rooms in the year available to rent for profit. It created (or relied on) a new base year, 2035, when Easter is March 25. March 25 is the earliest Easter can possibly be at any time during at least the next 50 years, and for 48 of those next 50 years Easter is always later than March 25, and, in most of those years, Easter is in April. DVCM put all days in March or April that are before the two Easter weeks (which run from the Sunday, a week before Easter, to the Saturday after Easter), in higher point season 6, and put all days in April after the two Easter weeks in lower point season 5. The result is as follows:

1. The 2035 base year has 16 days in March before the two Easter weeks that are in higher-point season 6 and all 30 days in April in lower-point season 5. For every year that Easter is later than March 25, which is 48 of the next 50 years, the number of days in the two months that will be in higher point season 6 before the two Easter weeks is higher than 16 and the number of days in lower point season 5 will be lower than 30. Thus, for 48 of the next 50 years, total points to reserve all rooms in March and April will be greater than those found in the base year for March and April, and thus total points to reserve all rooms for the calendar year will be greater than those found in the base year.

2. The shift of points changes from year to year and, in 2038, when Easter is at its latest, April 25, there will be 46 days in March and April before the two Easter weeks that will be in higher point season 6 and no days at all in lower point season 5.

3. This increase in total points, resulting from DVCM's decision to create new 7-season point charts that purposefully use the change in the Easter date to change total points per year, was first noticed by many when the 2022 point charts were released. Easter was April 4 in 2021 and will be April 17 in 2022, and thus there will be 11 more days in March and April in higher-point season 6 in 2022 than in 2021, and 11 fewer days in lower point season 5 that are after the two Easter weeks.

4. When total points to reserve the calendar year are greater than the base year total, the opportunity is created for DVCM to potentially have more rooms to rent for profit.

Some believe the change made was allowed. DVC has even mentioned the "excuse" that the variance in total points is simply due to the natural changes in the calendar annually, i.e., the annual change in the date for Easter. The problem with that excuse is that the "act" that actually caused the annual increase in points was DVC's decision to create new 7-season point charts that heavily rely on the change in the Easter date to annually increase points above those in any base year. If DVC's new interpretation of the POS and rules is correct, then nothing can stop it from creating new point charts in the future that add total points in calendar years above those in any base year by: (a) raising points in January that are before MLK day while lowering them for days in Jan after MLK day, and thus as MLK day (always the third Monday of January) moves from its earliest possible date, January 15, to its latest, January 21, total points needed to reserve all of Jan will increase; (b) make the same kind of change in May for the movement of Memorial Day; (c) make the same kind of change in October for the movement of Columbus Day; (d) make the same kind of change for days in November due to the movement of the date for Thanksgiving. In essence, DVC's new claim of right to create new point charts with new seasons could lead to even much greater increases in total points than those that exist now with only the change in the Easter date.

The 5-season charts never relied on the annual change of holiday dates, such as Easter, to raise total points needed to reserve all rooms for the year. A probable reason for that is that DVC, for almost 30 years, likely thought that would be improper and would violate DVC's obligation not to purposefully do acts that would require total points to reserve all rooms in a calendar year to be greater than those in a base year, The modern DVC, which has previously demonstrated in the last decade that is it is willing to do harm to members to aid in the increase of profits (e.g., various acts committed in the last decade to take away rights and privileges of resale purchasers), has apparently decided otherwise.
This happened when they created 1000s of extra members with tiny contracts. Just the logisitical support let alone cost of managing those members must be a nightmare. They should have kept decent minimums.
 
Steering the Safari Trek back to topic.....

-- If DVC did (does) not change the total points required to reserve from the current higher amount, would members be assessed per point according to the "points to reserve" chart amount?

Not that I'm advocating for DVC to keep 2022 point chart as-is, since I do think it's reasonable and advisable in good faith with the contracts to change it, but I'm just thinking about other impacts:

IF annual assessments are divided by the number of points required to reserve then,
On one hand: Having a greater number of points to divide the total assessment would mean a lesser dollar amount to pay per point.
On the other hand: If these points are significantly inflated beyond what was actually purchased by owners, then there will be a significant number of point that will go without being paid- cause there isn't anyone or entity attached to those points.

IF annual assessments are divided by the number of points sold to owners then,
there is no direct association between the numer of points required to reserve and any significant point inflation would not impact the annual assessment per point paid to maintain the property, etc.

I'm just thinking outloud, and may be incorrect about how the annual assessments/ per point payment process occurs. I welcome correction or clarification.


(Repost below)
I'm still processing the DVC Fan Show that went up this morning. I know I have thoughts, but generally I prefer to sit with my initial impression to see what I resonated with, what I might have missed, what aspects have impacted a prior point of view... etc. Thank you for your work on this.
:cutie:

Annual dues are based on number of points sold to owners. Points owned by DVD are not charged a fee because they guarantee that if the actual expenses for the year to operate the resort exceeds what was in the budget, they will cover the shortfall.
 
Right?! The “wokeness” today is insane!

People that once championed corporate voice (see Citizens United vs. FEC) are suddenly triggered when they don’t like what that corporate voice has to say and are suddenly “woke” to seeing the corporate malfeasance!

Where does the madness end?!
The madness doesn't end. It just morphs. The only constant is change, there's no beginning or end.
 
The LAW states that DVC must act in the best interests of the MEMBERS not DVC.

The contract states that DVC must act in the best interests of members. Only the courts can enforce someone to follow a contract.

There are ample cases in history of companies breaking both contracts and laws in order to increase their profits.
 
Thanks Doc for expressing the sentiment that DVC was quite different in the 1990's on today's podcast. I was there in 1996 and I agree it really did feel special to be a member back then. We didn't have to worry about having enough toilet paper for our stay either!

We still love it now and have twice as many points as when we originally bought, yet it's just not the same.
Life can look quaint in the rear view mirror, however OKW really did have a magical quality to it back in the day that felt very small town. I miss that very much...
 
Right?! The “wokeness” today is insane!

People that once championed corporate voice (see Citizens United vs. FEC) are suddenly triggered when they don’t like what that corporate voice has to say and are suddenly “woke” to seeing the corporate malfeasance!

Where does the madness end?!

Badly I think
 
The contract states that DVC must act in the best interests of members. Only the courts can enforce someone to follow a contract.

There are ample cases in history of companies breaking both contracts and laws in order to increase their profits.

No question about that but the adoption since the 1980's of the NASCAR ethos 'If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying' is the problem, Before that corporate america largely tried to 'color inside the lines' so to speak.
 
They did thi when they

This happened when they created 1000s of extra members with tiny contracts. Just the logisitical support let alone cost of managing those members must be a nightmare. They should have kept decent minimums.

The problem here is a earth year is 365.25 Days the time it takes to orbit the sun once, There are no year to year variations that allow extra days to be added to the calendar,
 
I bought in 2017 and never looked back. We've stayed at almost all the WDW locations and at The Grand Californian for five days with my family. I love the concept and the Disney training. I don't know how they are managing with all of the issues raised by the Pandemic and by being shorthanded throughout the organization. Untrained people on the phones is worse than waiting two hours to get through. I used to speak to the same person on almost every call. She was fantastic and bonded me to the DVC organization. Having gone through several sales pitches from the high pressure Wyndham Organization at Bonnet Creek over the years, I was brought to the brink of apoplectic anger on multiple occasions and never signed. What a sales organization! When I finally visited DVC, I signed immediately and with no pressure. I thought this was a magical decision to purchase. I loved everything about the buying process and the people with whom I worked. And it panned out. After five years and over $30,000 value in vacations, my points are worth almost 15% more, on the resale market, than my original purchase price. How can this be bad? It isn't! That's the simple answer. I was so enthused that in 2019, I was ready to double down on the points I had originally purchased. And then IT happened! DVC issued the policy change on resale use of points to only one location. Within one day, that was it for me. My decision, barring any unexpected changes, is to hold in place and enjoy what I've already purchased without restrictions on resale. My view of the restrictions on resale is that the value of my points has gone up significantly, so good for me, and that the value of new points purchase from DVC have fallen equally fast. So Disney has a client who is happy with an expensive DVC purchase, but would never purchase again. This is not a smart result. I know that others have reacted as I have. With this fatal wound, I don't see the organization as being very healthy. All the other issues are secondary and perhaps symptoms of a fatal management decline. It reminds me of the bartender at one of the major hotels in the Bahamas, who, when I inquired why his drinks were so much higher than I remember them, told me that the sales volumes had dropped off 80% due to the hurricanes and Pandemic and they had to raise prices to improve their margins. This is not a long term, healthy strategy. For DVC, something big has to change. And soon!
 
DVC issued the policy change on resale use of points to only one location.
That is sort of correct. As I understand it, if you purchase Riviera resale, it can only be used there. If you purchase one of the original 14 resorts, the points can only be used at one of the 14.
There has been lots of discussion on these restrictions, but doesn't look like DVC is planning to budge.
 
Last edited:
It is my understanding that if you purchase directly from DVC, then you can use your points anywhere, but when you resell your contract, if you ever do, then the new buyer can only use the points at the home resort. This restriction, lowers the value of the points in the resale market, but interestingly, if you have a contract without the new restriction, then the value of that contract should go up, all other things being equal. If you purchase an old contract on the resale market, then the contract is not restricted and you can use the points at any location.
 
















DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top