DVC Point Charts for 2011 - Post chart release discussion begins on Pg 14

[bookwormde]

Dismedvc,

Thanks for listing out the posts about the AKV and other “theoretical” issues; I was having a hard time following them myself.

On the broader issues,

DVC has no specific legal mandate to do any particular rebalancing (or any other policy change), what they do have is a legal mandate to what is in the best interest of the members without being influence by other factors, and if rebalancing is in the best interests of the members then it is appropriate.

bookwormde

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

I know this was talked about 20 pages (or so) ago... But this reallocation makes me sure glad I own at BWV... With the Standard and preferred views, a week can be had in a studio for only 76 points (and higher). But for me, the best kept secret is now Standard Views at BWV!

Shhh!!

Standard view at Boardwalk has that awful luggage cart view. You have to walk from the Hess Station to get to the resort, and don't get me started on having to share boats AND busses with five other resorts. Did I mention the pool slide is straight out of a horror movie.

 

[dismedvc]

I have no problem with rebalancing, I was more concerned about the possible "point creation" you defined earlier, and whether it is "fair", or possibly even criminal as you suggested earlier.

BTW, does my theoretical example in post #611 accurately reflect what you were proposing could theoretically be done.

 

[bookwormde]

All theoretical of course.

The second comment was about the broader issue not specifiaclly you post (and making the point that there is not specific mandate for any particular policy or change).

bookwormde

 

[photobob]

Shhh!!

Standard view at Boardwalk has that awful luggage cart view. You have to walk from the Hess Station to get to the resort, and don't get me started on having to share boats AND busses with five other resorts. Did I mention the pool slide is straight out of a horror movie.

I think this reallocation could hinder me from getting those horrible views at seven months in the future, really folks they're horrible, I wouldn't stay there if I were you!! I'll just stay there and take one for the team.

 

[Dumbo]

I know this was talked about 20 pages (or so) ago... But this reallocation makes me sure glad I own at BWV... With the Standard and preferred views, a week can be had in a studio for only 76 points (and higher). But for me, the best kept secret is now Standard Views at BWV!

I agree. Sure glad BWV is my home resort. 76 points for 7 nights the first week of December. 78 points for a week during the Food and Wine festival. Can't beat it.

Joe

 

[BroganMc]

What do you think it will change? Disney/DVC reps certainly do read fansites, like the DIS. But if you expect Disney/DVC to ignore their legal responsibility and obligation to balance demand by not reallocating the point charts, I would not look for that to happen.

I guess what I'm asking is what, specifically, do you want DVC/Disney to do to make you feel better about spending money with them? Given that as far as DVC they are legally bound to do many things that may have a negative affect on an individual membership, but is good for the overall membership program.

If I may answer this, you keep repeating this meme of DVC legal responsibility as trumping everything else. Do you then discount the impact on the company's reputation in the timeshare community? For two consecutive years, the program's terms have been reconfigured to affect exactly how much of an investment members must make to use it the way they wish. People are finding they must either travel fewer days or own more points.

One of the biggest selling points I remember from every sales promo I ever sat through or observed was the whole "this is the point chart and unlike room rates, that go up every year forever, these don't increase". Anyone who stayed less than 7 days, most over the week, saw a significant point increase every year. That would be the same as Marriott selling me a Platinum week to be used all of Spring Break and Summer, then later restricting me to Spring Break only unless I subscribed for the improved Platinum Plus season over the summer.

At some point what's in the member's best interests is to establish a sense of reliability. Nowhere in these charts, other than the Thurs-Mon timespan, are we seeing a point decrease for stays. It actually hurts any member who vacationed 6 or fewer days.

 

[Dean]

Was it all my fault for not buying a large enough amount of points with my add on to cushion these two unsuspected (but legally documented) point reallocations-YES but I can certainly be very disappointed that my second add on contract no longer works for my family the way I have come to expect. MY FAULT...but still disappointing.

I can't imagine there aren't many members in similar situations with their add ons....

I'm sure there are some. IMO, your post is very fair as you are separating the rules and realities from your disappointment and personal effect of the change, as it should be. I think we all realize and understand how one can be upset at how the changes might affect them personally, it's laying blame on Disney for somehow doing something wrong where I personally would draw the line.

They made changes two years in a row. This is not one change.

Dean, you can advise people to look at it as one change if you would like but that doesn't change the facts- and the fact is that changes were made two years in a row. To my knowledge, no one at DVC said after the change to the 2009 points charts that this reallocation is part of a two year process to change the points charts and the plan is to change points again in 2010 and then this one change will be complete.

As was pointed out, this is one change that took 2 years due to the 20% change per year limit. I would agree that it would have been best had they said so but understand why they wouldn't.

Yes, I have had a series of inquiries into MS (who then sends them on to management who then gets back to me either by email or phone) since the change and I am still waiting for some additonal answers to some questions. They did not say anything last year about a planned two year change but it is making sense now because of the 20% max rule -- they cannot change any given night more than 20% up or down in any given year without putting it to a member vote. The changes that have now been made over two years exceeed a total of 20% and thus they chose to take two years to do such a total and thus avoid the 20% max rule.

It was speculated fairly heavily on this board by some that more changes would be forthcoming. Many didn't think last years change enough to alter behaviour to a degree needed to even out demand, I guess DVC agreed. I personally expected they would wait a few years to see the effect, that they didn't is one reason I'm wondering if something bigger is in store such as a minimum stay or some other option to effectively serve the same purpose. Time will tell. One of the problems with doing it all now is it may mean another fine tuning later once they see the true effect. Had they waited, they might have been able to only do once more instead of 2011 and now may need another in addition.

So the changes can't exceed 20 percent PER YEAR, however they can be changed more than 20 percent totally. So where is the max change limit?

Technically there really isn't a limit. Realistically it's likely making all units the same for every day and season as laid out in the POS. Technically they could make one unit 1 points and another 1000 if they wanted and balanced the points otherwise but obviously this isn't at all realistic.

I actually agree with you- I think some of the weekend nights probably DID go down a bit too far. I'm okay with weekends being a bit higher cost than weekdays because I think in general the demand is higher. Or, it would be higher if the weekends hadn't been priced so much higher than weekdays.

Just like CRO is starting to charge a bit more for weekend nights, it makes sense for DVC to be a bit higher for weekends. Just not double the points as it was in many cases.

I agree and was thinking the same thing a day or two ago. The points have adjusted such that I suspect the pendulum will swing too far, that is one of the main reasons I think something else other than reallocation is in store.

Maybe I'm just thick headed, but how is this best for the membership?

Is it because there might be additional availability during the week if members start staying more on weekends?

Bill

I'm not Tim but I believe it's best for the membership as a whole because it will even out demand and evenout usage. Days that go unused are bad for the system. It should also decrease the S-F stays which orphan weekend days and inherently increase costs of the management of the resorts. It should encourage more full weeks which will also help. OTOH, if it encourages just long weekends it MIGHT be the same problem in reverse but will depend on how the overall balance is. For a large segment of the membership this will be a neutral issues, otherwise there will be roughly an equal number of winners and losers or at least an equal number of points that shift assuming the same stays.

t's not unreasonable to vent. i did last year.

it is unreasonable to confuse the inconvenience to you with what is good for the membership as a whole. it's frustrating for you personally but if you can take a step back and see the big picture, it'll probably help.

Well said and I agree on both counts.

DVC has no specific legal mandate to do any particular rebalancing (or any other policy change), what they do have is a legal mandate to what is in the best interest of the members without being influence by other factors, and if rebalancing is in the best interests of the members then it is appropriate.

bookwormde

Exactly. If they can even out the usage and demand, that is in the best interest of the membership as a whole.

 

[Dean]

If I may answer this, you keep repeating this meme of DVC legal responsibility as trumping everything else. Do you then discount the impact on the company's reputation in the timeshare community? For two consecutive years, the program's terms have been reconfigured to affect exactly how much of an investment members must make to use it the way they wish. People are finding they must either travel fewer days or own more points.

One of the biggest selling points I remember from every sales promo I ever sat through or observed was the whole "this is the point chart and unlike room rates, that go up every year forever, these don't increase". Anyone who stayed less than 7 days, most over the week, saw a significant point increase every year. That would be the same as Marriott selling me a Platinum week to be used all of Spring Break and Summer, then later restricting me to Spring Break only unless I subscribed for the improved Platinum Plus season over the summer.

At some point what's in the member's best interests is to establish a sense of reliability. Nowhere in these charts, other than the Thurs-Mon timespan, are we seeing a point decrease for stays. It actually hurts any member who vacationed 6 or fewer days.

As I've replied to you before, I think you put way too much stock in this angle. While I do believe DVC will consider the impact, I do not believe that reasonable changes in the timeshae theme such as the reallocation or even a minimum stay will detere them too much. Just like I didn't think that complaints about the reallocation last year would have much effect either now or into the future. As I've noted previously, DVC is just another top timeshare. In my view some members have held them up on a pedastal as the rock of timeshares that they are now learning is not the case. I also think much of this worship has been created by members, not Disney itself, though I know that the sales staff have exploited that feeling. In the past I've been chastised on DIS for equating timeshare sales staff with used car sales, I'm guessing not too much now. To be honest, I do believe DVC sales staff as a whole are far above the norm and likely at the top, just not to the degree that many here have viewed them.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Dean, please tell us what could be "bigger things in store" in the future? Week long min reservations? Priority booking? Two tier DVC system?

 

[Dumbo]

If anybody thinks this new 2011 point re-allocation was based on membership demand or booking habits, here is something to consider. Someone needs to look at Boardwalk Villas 2010 and 2011 points chart. For 2011 all the standard room points went down across the board. That's for all types of villa accomadations and all seasons. Well Christmas and Easter(Premier season) are pretty close.

So I guess those standard room villas at BWV weren't that hard to get after all!!!

Joe

 

[Metsoskil]

It should also decrease the S-F stays which orphan weekend days and inherently increase costs of the management of the resorts.

I understand. So, the point reallocation that happened last year decreased the cost of running the resorts, and this one will decrease it further. And that's why my MFs went down last year.

Oh, wait. They didn't. They increased.

 

[Dean]

Dean, please tell us what could be "bigger things in store" in the future? Week long min reservations? Priority booking? Two tier DVC system?

All I can do is spout the possibilities, no inside info here. However, all of those are possible. It seems clear to me that the points have swung enough to create the same problem in reverse, hopefully not but it seems that way to me. Thus I wonder what other options might be forthcoming. I think all of the ones you mentioned are possible. A min stay would seem to be the easiest and best fit to the POS but even then they'd likely have to require some weekend usage associated. IMO DVC has been foolish for allowing resale buyers to get full perks, from a business standpoint they should have made a change years ago in this regard, IMO. A priority reservation of a full week is already somewhat in the works, esp if they change it where any change is a cancelation and rebooking which should do away with most walking. They could institute a two or more tiered system if they wanted though I suspect they'd grandfather current members but would not have a legal obligation to do so I don't believe. They could also institute small fees for various issues like multiple reservations, canceling, banking, borrowing, etc. IMO some of these issues are far less likely than others but all are possible in my mind. This next 5-6 years should be intersting. Your guess is as good, maybe better, than mine.

If anybody thinks this new 2011 point re-allocation was based on membership demand or booking habits, here is something to consider. Someone needs to look at Boardwalk Villas 2010 and 2011 points chart. For 2011 all the standard room points went down across the board. That's for all types of villa accomadations and all seasons. Well Christmas and Easter(Premier season) are pretty close.

So I guess those standard room villas at BWV weren't that hard to get after all!!!

Joe

Your assuming the same number of units in SV which might or might not be the case. Also, one has to look at the overall situation and realize that the need to balance creates issues where "that's the best we can do" is a common phrase in DVC meetings on the subject. Also you can only reserve a given room once so it's possible that they feel one those rooms are full that members will reserve other units more evenly within the home resort window. You may want to ask DVC management this very question, I'm sure they'd have an appropriate response as to why though I suspect it's as I said, we had to balance so this is where we decide to compromise.

 

[disneynutz]

I'm not Tim but I believe it's best for the membership as a whole because it will even out demand and even out usage. Days that go unused are bad for the system. It should also decrease the S-F stays which orphan weekend days and inherently increase costs of the management of the resorts. It should encourage more full weeks which will also help. OTOH, if it encourages just long weekends it MIGHT be the same problem in reverse but will depend on how the overall balance is. For a large segment of the membership this will be a neutral issues, otherwise there will be roughly an equal number of winners and losers or at least an equal number of points that shift assuming the same stays.

Still confused. Disney is obligated/required to maintain a balance of occupied rooms, 7 nights a week.

After all these years, they decided last year that they would fulfill their obligation and reallocate the point requirements. For 2011 they decided that they needed another reallocation because in 2010, not enough people booked weekends and they know this 15 days into 2010?

Other than then possibility of making week nights more available for some members because other members may move their reservations to weekend nights, is there another benefit for the members?

Bill

 

[wdrl]

Given work2play's breakdown of rooms at BLT and the 2009, 2010 and 2011 points charts, what is the result in total points at BLT for those three years if you use work2play's classifications for all three years?

If the totals come out different, there must be a reclassification of some rooms. (Possibly a downgrading out of MK view for lower floors and maybe even rooms in the far south of the middle section, like XX30.) If that happened, and the points for other rooms were increased, but those other rooms were not upgraded in category, it sounds like the same type of "point creation" that might have happened at AKV (and possibly BW in 1996)

If the totals come out the same, maybe they are just waiting for the resort to be sold out before they do the reclassification. (How’s that for a conspiracy theory)

Since you have the algorithms and spreadsheets built, I was hoping this might be something that would not be that hard for one of you to look at. Thanks.

When we bought BLT, I remember reading some estimates of BLT mix of villas and views: 281 total accommodations broken out by 27 Standard View 2BRs, 182 LV 2BRs; 58 MK 2BRs; 8 LV GVs; and 6 MK GVs. Since I have no assurances about the accuracy of that breakout, I know any exercise in comparing 2010 to 2011 point totals is suspect.

However, if I use that breakout of accommodations, BLT total points is about 6,295 points less in 2011 than in 2010. That is a difference of -0.1096%, which is less than the difference that I saw in the case of VWL (-0.1293%) or BWV (-0.1321%).

Since one of my underlying assumptions is suspect, I am not willing to rely on my findings in BLT's case. However, my findings with the data from VWL and BWV leads me to believe that the 2011 point reallocation has been "point neutral."

 

[Chuck S]

If I may answer this, you keep repeating this meme of DVC legal responsibility as trumping everything else.

Actually, assuming they have the occupancy/demand data, then yes, they legal requirement do pretty much trump everything else. They are not allowed to consider "reputation" as a factor if the demand is out of balance.

If the data supports a reallocation and they do not do one knowing the system is out of balance, they leave themselves open to lawsuits.

When we see the resorts empty out on weekends, that is indictative that there is a problem with the occupany balance.

 

[CarolMN]

Still confused. Disney is obligated/required to maintain a balance of occupied rooms, 7 nights a week.

After all these years, they decided last year that they would fulfill their obligation and reallocate the point requirements. For 2011 they decided that they needed another reallocation because in 2010, not enough people booked weekends and they know this 15 days into 2010?

Other than then possibility of making week nights more available for some members because other members may move their reservations to weekend nights, is there another benefit for the members?

Bill

I'm thinking that now there will be fewer points that expire before they can be used. Even if very few members start using points for weekend nights and the demand for weeknights stays the same, there will be more points used for those weeknights. So less points that could possibly expire. I think that is good for the membership. The system has to be at least somewhat in balance to be sustainable.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Actually, assuming they have the occupancy/demand data, then yes, they legal requirement do pretty much trump everything else. They are not allowed to consider "reputation" as a factor if the demand is out of balance.

If the data supports a reallocation and they do not do one knowing the system is out of balance, they leave themselves open to lawsuits.

When we see the resorts empty out on weekends, that is indictative that there is a problem with the occupany balance.

They didn't seem to mind prior to 2009.

MG

 

[Chuck S]

They didn't seem to mind prior to 2009.

MG

More small contracts, including 100 points for new memberships, in the last few years have probably made the balance even worse...to the point they had to do something.

 

[ITGirl50]

We were thinking about adding on this year, but we are really concerned about the direction DVC is taking. It makes us nervous about the quality of our investment. It's not just a onetime investment either. We have to pay yearly dues. We bought based on a 5-night weekday stay so we could go twice a year. That's what our sales person sold us.

BTW..Our contract also says they don't guarantee animals will be kept at AKV. They could actually remove them and we could do nothing about it.