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

[yitbos96bb]

For DVC, the first 2 weeks of December is almost always soldout far in advance. Members like to go for the Christmas activities. I'm not sure the fact that it's the lowest point season makes a big difference, I went that time even before I was a member.

Well what's far in advance though? I mean I've called at 3-4 months out last year and got a room in that time period. Granted it wasn't my first choice, but I did get what I needed. I Guess I just don't get what their reasoning would be... I mean Christmas week, Summer and Spring Break weeks are always gonna be crowded regardless of point value, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to lower those... So why potentially hurt the business of a dedicated group during your slow periods by raising the points...

I guess time will tell, but I mean the Sweet Spots for DVCers to help the Theme Parks bottom line are times like the First 3 weeks of December and F and W when others may or may not come but hte DVCers are there. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that over a 5 your span, most of our trips fall into a pattern of specific times... such as the first two weeks of Dec, F and W, etc. In other words, I bet many or most of us lock into a time we like to visit and for the most part stay around that. For me, its sometime Arriving after Dec 1 and Leaving by Dec 23... not staying the whole time but most trips fall into that group.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Demand for DVC units doesn't necessarily track park attendance---and the point charts have to reflect the former, not the latter.

True it doesn't track attendence but Disney would be foolish to not take both factors into account. Unless one period is significantly behind the rest and you need to lower that period to get guests in, then if they all have a similar level of attendence it wouldn't make sense to make changes, unless they want 98% filled by 120 days out or something like that. But I just got a Mid Jan reservation and the only opening was SSR and further, the last day of my original request was not available from SSR (MLK DAY). All the rest were booked (I was hoping to spend as little points as I could... SSR was 5th on my preferences but hey if that's all that's there, that's all that's there).

I don't know... I mean the 2010 changes make sense to me to try and get more people there on the weekend or staying over the weekend when the parks are open longer to potentially entice them to spend more money or even days at Disney. I guess we will know more when they come out... I just hope they aren't trying to create more vacancies to try and hell as rooms.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Have you noticed the 2011 CRUISE charts posted on the member site.

There were large variances, but the number of points required for a category 11 - 3 day cruise in value season, had gone down!!

That category went from 67 to 49 points.

I know the category 11 rooms are...well...not that deluxe...but dh and I have never been on a cruise and only have 100 points!!

We can now take a cruise for both of us on 1 year's points (if we decide to do that.) Its still pretty hard to give up 2 - 5 day trips to BWV - standard for one 3 day cruise! We'll see.

Bit of advice... Check and see what the cost of the same room is for a 3 day cruise during the same period. If the cruise is less than $1000, then you could rent out your points and use the cash to either get a nicer room, a longer cruise, pay for excursions, or stay a few days after or before the cruise. That helps you maximize your points!

 

[Brian Noble]

True it doesn't track attendence but Disney would be foolish to not take both factors into account.

Completely wrong. The only thing that point charts must accommodate is the demand for DVC rooms booked on points. Crowds in the park are immaterial for this matter.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Completely wrong. The only thing that point charts must accommodate is the demand for DVC rooms booked on points. Crowds in the park are immaterial for this matter.

No not completely wrong, but instead a disagreement in business philosophy. What you are saying ONLY looks out for the DVC business Unit. What I am saying takes into account the entire WDW Business Unit. If they are ONLY taking into account what's best for the DVC business unit, then they are potentially damaging the WDW Business unit. Instead, they need to take into account what's good for the DVC unit, the WDW unit and the Disney COmpany unit. As an overall business strategy, failing to take into account park attendance when figuring out the best way to fill the time share units is abject stupidity on the part of Disney. All of these aspects depend on each other and failures in one part can potentially cause failures in other. If ticket prices are too high, less people spend time at Disney, hurting merchandise and Dining and hotels. If Dining is bad or way too expensive, people leave property and spend less time in the parks. If DVC points are too much during a slow park attendance time, you risk driving away a core group that would have been there spending on Dining, Merchandise, park admission, etc. Its a delicate balance, and failure to take it into account, even peripherally is bad business. Now with the cleaning lady (as Pete likes to call her) in charge, I could see them doing something stupid like that. In fact, I'd argue they have made several boneheaded decisions without taking all factors into account.... But they SHOULDN'T be is my point.

Of course if you are just referring to what they are required to take into account by the letter of what they have to do by contract for points charts, yes you are correct. But that was not what I was referring to earlier at all, but rather the business strategy of not taking other things into account when planning moves such as this. I apologize if I did not make that clear enough.

 

[Longhairbear]

No not completely wrong, but instead a disagreement in business philosophy. What you are saying ONLY looks out for the DVC business Unit. What I am saying takes into account the entire WDW Business Unit. If they are ONLY taking into account what's best for the DVC business unit, then they are potentially damaging the WDW Business unit. Instead, they need to take into account what's good for the DVC unit, the WDW unit and the Disney COmpany unit. As an overall business strategy, failing to take into account park attendance when figuring out the best way to fill the time share units is abject stupidity on the part of Disney. All of these aspects depend on each other and failures in one part can potentially cause failures in other. If ticket prices are too high, less people spend time at Disney, hurting merchandise and Dining and hotels. If Dining is bad or way too expensive, people leave property and spend less time in the parks. If DVC points are too much during a slow park attendance time, you risk driving away a core group that would have been there spending on Dining, Merchandise, park admission, etc. Its a delicate balance, and failure to take it into account, even peripherally is bad business. Now with the cleaning lady (as Pete likes to call her) in charge, I could see them doing something stupid like that. In fact, I'd argue they have made several boneheaded decisions without taking all factors into account.... But they SHOULDN'T be is my point.

Of course if you are just referring to what they are required to take into account by the letter of what they have to do by contract for points charts, yes you are correct. But that was not what I was referring to earlier at all, but rather the business strategy of not taking other things into account when planning moves such as this. I apologize if I did not make that clear enough.

In my opinion, of course Disney takes all guest behavior into account when pricing everything, including the amount of points per day. This is most evident in the pricing of groceries, and variety of items at the Disney stores.
They want to guests to eat out on property, as well as cook at home, but for a price.

 

[Brian Noble]

instead a disagreement in business philosophy.

Except that, in this case, DVC has a duty (spelled out in the POS) to balance point charts based on demand for DVC rooms. So, the philosophy is not in question.

 

[Doug7856]

Overall I rate DVC very high; however, the withholding of information such as the 2011 point schedule is unacceptable. Every time I consider adding on to my membership, things like this make me reconsider.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Except that, in this case, DVC has a duty (spelled out in the POS) to balance point charts based on demand for DVC rooms. So, the philosophy is not in question.

Doesn't matter Brian. You keep focusing and obsessing on the mechanism of change and are NOT looking at the REASONS of the change, which is what i have said in several posts now. I don't care about the mechanism as its irrelevant to the discussion; I care about the Business REASONING and STRATEGY. In other words, I am talking about them COMING to the decision, not executing the decision, which has been your focus. When reaching the decision to make a points change all factors need to be taken into account. Failure to do so is abject stupidity on Disney's part.

 

[Doug7856]

I have to agree with Brian here. Business philosophy has nothing to do with point re-allocation. This is required in the POS.

 

[Chuck S]

Disney and DVC do not always share the same interests, legally.

And in fact, there have been rare instances where DVC has made decisions or taken actions that could be considered somewhat against the best interest of The Walt Disney company. The pool slide construction at OKW, for one. DVC (membership) did not pay for the construction, it was built by the Developer (DVD) who ultimately makes their profit for Disney, thus the funds to build it reduced profit, though members have to maintain it through dues. There was no great advantage to Disney to having a pool slide at OKW, other than marketing cash rooms there. But that also helps offset dues using breakage inventory.

 

[Steamboat Girlie]

Just bumping!

 

[Brian Noble]

In other words, I am talking about them COMING to the decision, not executing the decision,

Let me say this slowly, so that you understand.

Ignoring the 2% set aside for maintenance, the points representing every room-night in a fully-sold resort is owned by some Member, somewhere. That means that every room-night should be utilized by some Member, in some way---either direct use, for a guest, or exchanged through one of the exchange options (which in turn result in occupied rooms). If demand is imbalanced, then some nights have more Members wishing to utilize than there are rooms available, and other nights have more rooms available than there are Members wishing to utilize.

When such circumstances arise systemically, language in the POS requires DVC to consider reallocation. As I understand it, this is the only basis on which DVC is empowered to consider reallocation.

Let's assume for a moment that DVC *is* beholden to TWDC, and wishes to increase theme park attendance on days when attendance is otherwise low, and uses this in addition to room-demand to consider point chart establishment. But, the only way to increase attendance on those days would be to make sure that every DVC Member-owned room is utilized. DVC can't "perform better" for TWDC than it would by just rebalancing based only on DVC room-night demand. So, even if they were nefariously trying to game the system, they can't do any better than if they just did what they claim to do.

 

[dwelty]

Disney and DVC do not always share the same interests, legally.

And in fact, there have been rare instances where DVC has made decisions or taken actions that could be considered somewhat against the best interest of The Walt Disney company. The pool slide construction at OKW, for one. DVC (membership) did not pay for the construction, it was built by the Developer (DVD) who ultimately makes their profit for Disney, thus the funds to build it reduced profit, though members have to maintain it through dues. There was no great advantage to Disney to having a pool slide at OKW, other than marketing cash rooms there. But that also helps offset dues using breakage inventory.

I also think they are looking at the resorts that fill up last in the DVC system (OKW and SSR). The pool slide at OKW and the new pool area at SSR are evidence of this. Make the amenities more enticing and Members will want to stay there more often.

 

[hakepb]

I also think they are looking at the resorts that fill up last in the DVC system (OKW and SSR). The pool slide at OKW and the new pool area at SSR are evidence of this. Make the amenities more enticing and Members will want to stay there more often.

..although SSR owners paid for the new pool and CS food service from their own maintaince fund. (a little more like BWV owners paying for larger 42" TV's in preferred water/pool view rooms out of their maint fund becasue there is too many boardwalk view requests..)

It is a change at SSR that should help with the low number of Carosel and Paddock requests (and perhaps help the members that would still rather stay in Congress Park, Springs or Grandstand..)

 

[lisareniff]

The best they can do now is get the charts out 3 weeks before the last possible day. pathetic

 

[yitbos96bb]

Disney and DVC do not always share the same interests, legally.

And in fact, there have been rare instances where DVC has made decisions or taken actions that could be considered somewhat against the best interest of The Walt Disney company. The pool slide construction at OKW, for one. DVC (membership) did not pay for the construction, it was built by the Developer (DVD) who ultimately makes their profit for Disney, thus the funds to build it reduced profit, though members have to maintain it through dues. There was no great advantage to Disney to having a pool slide at OKW, other than marketing cash rooms there. But that also helps offset dues using breakage inventory.

Very true, but again, what seems to be missed is my post is on what SHOULD be done and taken into account, not the mechanism as Brian has posted, nor the past actions. My post is simply business philosophical in nature... frankly, I think the WDW business units failure at this has caused several of the issues at the world over the last 5 years, but that's just my opinion...I think the communication is lacking among the people who need to be communicating the most.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

As I've said before on the DIS, the lack of communication between DVC and the members shows a genuine lack of maturity by DVC management.

I will not say that Jim Lewis is necessarily the person showing immaturity, but the buck stops at Jim. Ultimately, it is all his responsibility.

I don't always agree with everything that DVC does, but get truly annoyed at the lack of communication.

 

[CarolMN]

Very true, but again, what seems to be missed is my post is on what SHOULD be done and taken into account, not the mechanism as Brian has posted, nor the past actions. My post is simply business philosophical in nature... frankly, I think the WDW business units failure at this has caused several of the issues at the world over the last 5 years, but that's just my opinion...I think the communication is lacking among the people who need to be communicating the most.

I understand your point about communication between business units. That's how it should (and does) work in a well run company.

However, DVC is not a typical Disney business unit. DVC has a fiduciary duty to its members, not to Disney or its stockholders. All decisions must be based on that. DVC cannot legally make changes to DVC based on what is best for the Disney company overall if the decision negatively impacts members as a whole. I've paraphrased, but that's the gist of it, and that is Brian's point.

 

[ftballfan7]

Very true, but again, what seems to be missed is my post is on what SHOULD be done and taken into account, not the mechanism as Brian has posted, nor the past actions. My post is simply business philosophical in nature... frankly, I think the WDW business units failure at this has caused several of the issues at the world over the last 5 years, but that's just my opinion...I think the communication is lacking among the people who need to be communicating the most.

I think most understand your post. many, myself included, disagree with what a business "SHOULD" do. Obviously what should be done is what is legally required to be done. Taking into account factors which are not legally allowed to be part of the equation when deciding if a reallocation is necessary or how said reallocation is to be carried out is not good business. This would open the business up to lawsuits and make bad business sense.