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

[Metsoskil]

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.

In that case, DVC exasperated a problem by selling small contracts, presumably showing those members point charts before the allocation(s). Then they changed things so that these new members could not stay as many days with their points (I would guess that most small-contract owners tended to stay weeknights.) Yet, we are supposed to trust that the same company that did this is simply "doing what is best for us" and doesn't have other motives.

I'm OK with the fact that DVC "could" do this. I knew it was a possibility, and as much as it stinks for me, life (and Disney vacations) will go on. What I have a hard time believing is that Disney does not have financial motives in this change.

Put it this way: If Disney stood to lose money from this reallocation, do you really think it would have been done (even if it were good for the collective members)? I don't - legal mandate or not. They would have found some loophole. I'm sure Disney stands to gain from this allocation, whether it be from a change in theme park attendance, more people staying in DVC resorts, people being forced to add on points to continue with their vacation habits, or something I haven't though of.

The one thing that I've learned about Disney in the past few years is that Disney does what is good for Disney.

 

[Dean]

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

They didn't seem to mind prior to 2009.

MG

Again, the benefit to the membership as a whole is to even out demand and usage. It sounds like we differ on that assumption, so be it. I can't answer why they decided to do so now other than to say that the issue has been slowly getting worse and that we have senior management with more gumption to make such changes that we did not have in the past. Overall to me this is a good thing but I could see where some might feel otherwise. You should pose this question to our voting rep or some VP to possibly get more DVC's actual thinking. I'd say better late than never but can't answer why it took so long for a change that my info suggested should have been in place around the 2001 points table. Of course the other option as a possible explanation that I can think of is that they DO have other changes in mind along the lines discussed earlier. I do not buy the idea that they hadn't done it so far so no reason to start now but some might.

I also feel that more and more people have been doing the S-F thing as they learn more about how the system worked and agree that smaller contracts have further worsened the problem.

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."

I too would like at that difference as within normal variation. I don't know the room breakdowns. Normally there is as much variation as you note in simply year to year. Did you use the same year with the different schedules or actually use 2010 vs 2011. If you used the same year, I'd expect an even lower difference. If I recall last years, when I ran SSR that way the difference was less than 0.1%. Some would say, it's one point different so it doesn't satisfy the balancing rule. I think that line of thinking is unreasonable personally.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

And I think this is what is frustrating to a lot of people who bought for only weekday stays. It was a selling point and could be why the need has come to readjust--too many people took advantage of it.

I personally think that if this had not happened and things continued the way it had, many of those same people who bought for weekday stays would begin to have trouble even booking those trips.

At some point, there would simply not be enough rooms to give all members who want to stay weekdays only the chance to do so.

I do hope that you are able to stick with DVC and give it some time. If this does what it should, then the points should stay fairly stable for the next few years, people will adjust, and once again, be happy with what DVC has to offer.

 

[BroganMc]

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.

But does the data actually support this gross imbalance? I've never been privy to reservation statistics, have you?

I should note, I have never seen a resort "empty out" on weekends. Watching the Front Desk of SSR over the past years, the amount of check-ins seems fairly even every day of the week. Staff there do not talk about "busy days" as much as "busy times of day".

The one and only statistic I ever got was back in October 2008 when I needed to work closely with the Front Desk at SSR to extend my stay for a medical emergency. At the time, they were showing the entire resort 110% booked (i.e. overbooked). This was over a weekend in mid-October. Last Autumn when I asked how bookings were going, they told me they were booked solid from October to December. This is for a resort that is the largest and still has unsold inventory.

Those factoids leave me being very skeptical of DVC's purity in these matters.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I don't see how this reallocation will FORCE a rebalance of points use? Just because weekends are cheaper doesn't make them EQUAL to the weekday nights points. If one is still saving points going S-Th, how does this change affect behavior? I don't see it until weekend nights are the same as weekday nights.

 

[Dean]

But does the data actually support this gross imbalance? I've never been privy to reservation statistics, have you?

I should note, I have never seen a resort "empty out" on weekends. Watching the Front Desk of SSR over the past years, the amount of check-ins seems fairly even every day of the week. Staff there do not talk about "busy days" as much as "busy times of day".

The one and only statistic I ever got was back in October 2008 when I needed to work closely with the Front Desk at SSR to extend my stay for a medical emergency. At the time, they were showing the entire resort 110% booked (i.e. overbooked). This was over a weekend in mid-October. Last Autumn when I asked how bookings were going, they told me they were booked solid from October to December. This is for a resort that is the largest and still has unsold inventory.

Those factoids leave me being very skeptical of DVC's purity in these matters.

I have in the past but it's been a couple of years. All we have otherwise is DVC's vague statements and anecdotal info. I think you'll have to either trust DVC or push upper management for the real info. In the past they've been reluctant to release the data so I'd suspect they'll require the member to show up in person at Celebration to get much specifics.

 

[Dean]

I don't see how this reallocation will FORCE a rebalance of points use? Just because weekends are cheaper doesn't make them EQUAL to the weekday nights points. If one is still saving points going S-Th, how does this change affect behavior? I don't see it until weekend nights are the same as weekday nights.

It doesn't have to force anyone, only affect a percentage of members, enough to even it out somewhat. It'll never be perfect. Starting to wonder if there's something else in store as I speculated?

 

[BWV Dreamin]

It doesn't have to force anyone, only affect a percentage of members, enough to even it out somewhat. It'll never be perfect. Starting to wonder if there's something else in store as I speculated?

Yes, it really appears so....

 

[Sandisw]

I don't see how this reallocation will FORCE a rebalance of points use? Just because weekends are cheaper doesn't make them EQUAL to the weekday nights points. If one is still saving points going S-Th, how does this change affect behavior? I don't see it until weekend nights are the same as weekday nights.

For me, this change will possibly shift what I do. Airfare from Syracuse is always cheaper to travel mid week. But to take advantage of this, I had to stay on points through the weekend. If I didn't want to do the weekend, then I payed higher for my airefare. Lose-lose for me since a weekday only stay (BLT 5 nights, 1 bedroom, SV, Magic Season) was 170 but one with weekends was 204 (24 more points than I owned).

Now, with the 2011 charts, the spread is down to 16, effectively giving me more flexiblity in booking my trips. That doesn't seem like much, but it will add 4 additional years before I run out of points to borrow.

 

[Chuck S]

But does the data actually support this gross imbalance? I've never been privy to reservation statistics, have you?

I should note, I have never seen a resort "empty out" on weekends. Watching the Front Desk of SSR over the past years, the amount of check-ins seems fairly even every day of the week. Staff there do not talk about "busy days" as much as "busy times of day".

The one and only statistic I ever got was back in October 2008 when I needed to work closely with the Front Desk at SSR to extend my stay for a medical emergency. At the time, they were showing the entire resort 110% booked (i.e. overbooked). This was over a weekend in mid-October. Last Autumn when I asked how bookings were going, they told me they were booked solid from October to December. This is for a resort that is the largest and still has unsold inventory.

Those factoids leave me being very skeptical of DVC's purity in these matters.

Speaking with housekeeping, Fridays and Sundays are the busiest days at OKW. The check-in lobby is usually pretty full on Sunday, and I never have a problem finding a parking spot near my villa late Friday and all day Saturday, but the lots fill up again on Sunday.

Don't forget that SSR had a lot of "Developers Points" that were use or lose in 2008.

 

[dismedvc]

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."

Thanks. My quick count of work2play's thread shows basically the same numbers, except with 7 more Standard View rooms, and 7 less Lake view rooms. The number of MK view rooms are the same.

I would therefore feel fairly confident that not only has the point reallocation been "point neutral", but also that there has been no reclassification of the MK view rooms.

Even though there has been some member complaints about some of the currently classified MK view rooms being less than they expected, it would seem too early too make major reclassifications. Thanks again for satisfying my curiosity.

 

[Chuck S]

In that case, DVC exasperated a problem by selling small contracts, presumably showing those members point charts before the allocation(s). Then they changed things so that these new members could not stay as many days with their points (I would guess that most small-contract owners tended to stay weeknights.) Yet, we are supposed to trust that the same company that did this is simply "doing what is best for us" and doesn't have other motives.

I'm OK with the fact that DVC "could" do this. I knew it was a possibility, and as much as it stinks for me, life (and Disney vacations) will go on. What I have a hard time believing is that Disney does not have financial motives in this change.

Put it this way: If Disney stood to lose money from this reallocation, do you really think it would have been done (even if it were good for the collective members)? I don't - legal mandate or not. They would have found some loophole. I'm sure Disney stands to gain from this allocation, whether it be from a change in theme park attendance, more people staying in DVC resorts, people being forced to add on points to continue with their vacation habits, or something I haven't though of.

The one thing that I've learned about Disney in the past few years is that Disney does what is good for Disney.

Since the parks are more crowded on weekends, if Disney were looking to balance park attendance, wouldn't DVC weekdays be less, rather than the current reallocation that tends to even them out? More or less people staying in DVC resorts also has little effect, as the resort expenses are covered either way by our dues. 25 to 50 point contract add-ons are not a big $$$ maker for Disney, they require bookkeeping/accounting time to enter into the system & guide time to sell, even if Disney sells a couple thousand extra 50 point add-ons, that is small potatoes in the overall scheme of things for a corporation as large as Disney. I've yet to see how a reallocation is a benefit to Disney as a whole, given the overall cost of making the change...the legal review of the charts to verify they are in balance with the resort total, CMs time handling an influx of emails and calls from members who complain, member dissatisfaction...all of those things have costs...which may explain why we haven't seen a reallocation every 5 years or so, until the system was thrown way too far out of balance.

 

[wdrl]

Did you use the same year with the different schedules or actually use 2010 vs 2011.

When I did the calculations comparing the difference between the 2010 and 2011 point charts for VWL, BWV, and BLT, I used the actual 2010 and 2011 calendar days.

 

[Dean]

When I did the calculations comparing the difference between the 2010 and 2011 point charts for VWL, BWV, and BLT, I used the actual 2010 and 2011 calendar days.

To get a better comparison of the actual difference in points, you'd be better comparing both using the same calendar year. Even better would be the base year. For fun you might consider comparing year to year with the same point tables.

 

[Muushka]

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.

Sounds like someone made a miscalculation. At some member's expense.

But it is all for the better good of DVC, right?

 

[BWV Dreamin]

A point is a point is a point. Why should it matter in what increments the points are sold? No, these small point contracts have always been in existence. DVC created the imbalance with the points charts. Let's not shift this over onto the owners. We are just using the membership as it has been made available to use by DVD.

 

[Muushka]

A point is a point is a point. Why should it matter in what increments the points are sold? No, these small point contracts have always been in existence. DVC created the imbalance with the points charts. Let's not shift this over onto the owners. We are just using the membership as it has been made available to use by DVD.

But if the minimum was lowered to 100 points to buy in, don't you think that people would buy a small first contract and try to be frugal and get the most use out of it?

 

[Dean]

A point is a point is a point. Why should it matter in what increments the points are sold? No, these small point contracts have always been in existence. DVC created the imbalance with the points charts. Let's not shift this over onto the owners. We are just using the membership as it has been made available to use by DVD.

It matters because the smaller contracts (either add ons or sale of same) have generated those that are so close on points that they really were locked in to weekdays in many cases to make them work. DVC likely should have raised the minimum for a new resort to at least 100 or even the min new buy in of 150/160. They should also have regulated the sale of same in some way. Of course they could have bought them all back ROFR as well. The problem is you've got a sales side and a management side and at times, they are at odds. This would seem to be one of those times. I'm sure the sales guides are "loving" it right now with this on top of the economy.

It's also allowed people to buy in that couldn't afford it otherwise. In many ways that's a good thing but we're seeing the bad side of it now.

 

[tjkraz]

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.

Actually housekeeping budgets did go down for 2010.

At SSR the budget went down from $8.6 million in 2009 to $8 million in 2010. At BWV the budget went from $4.2 million in '09 to $4 million in '10. (Those are the two I have handy, but they are not the only ones that went down.)

If these budget reductions are related to projections of longer guest stays, unchanged point charts would have resulted in even higher dues for 2010.

From '08 to '09, SSR's housekeeping budget went up by about 8%. In a service dominated by labor costs, annual increases are almost always to be expected as raises are often guaranteed by collective bargaining agreements and the cost of providing benefits increases.

If the SSR housekeeping budget had seen a similar 8% increase from '09 to '10, the charge to members would have been around $9.3 million. The difference between that $9.3 mil and the actual charge of $8 mil is significant.

 

[tjkraz]

I don't see how this reallocation will FORCE a rebalance of points use? Just because weekends are cheaper doesn't make them EQUAL to the weekday nights points. If one is still saving points going S-Th, how does this change affect behavior? I don't see it until weekend nights are the same as weekday nights.

I believe it will be a combination of things. Some people will decide to use more points on the weekends. We are probably in that boat.

In 6+ years of ownership I could count on one hand the number of weekend nights we have stayed on points. In our first 12 months as owners we did three 5-night trips (sun-thurs) to maximize our points and AP value.

But now that the kids are getting older, transportation costs are higher and weekend DVC costs are more reasonable, we would trade those three 5-night stays for two 6 or 7 night stays.

So SOME business will certainly be shifted to the weekends.

The other thing that's happened, as many people painfully know, is that their points either don't go as far as they used to or they go further.

A member with just enough points (in 2009) for a 5-night weekday stay will now come up short. If they can only book 4 nights with their points, one day of additional availability has been added to the system. Add up all those single nights and it will be a significant number.

At the same time, the small number of people who do frequent long weekends will find that their points go much further. Instead of getting two 4-day weekends per year they may now have enough points for three long weekends. That will increase occupancy on the weekends.