DVC sales growth ideas

[Brianstl]

Right now, AP discount is around $360 or so a night for studios.. My point was that not selling doesn’t mean no income. They have a way to cover their share of costs...and I’m sure profit..while they sell.

There is no rush, IMO, of making decisions to change their entire model of resale restrictions right now when they can generate income for the 65% of rooms not declared.

With occupancy levels what they currently are, is that really the case?

 

[sethschroeder]

Disney isn't excising ROFR anymore and won't be for a longtime. They have already discounted their inventory of points they accumulated through ROFR.

Yup which makes me think if they can do something to make money off resale without needing to ROFR they might strongly look at it.

Maybe only after the upgrade at time of processing the resale contract? Or maybe a 30 day window to upgrade them?

No clue will be interested to see if they change anything up.

 

[Sandisw]

With occupancy levels what they currently are, is that really the case?

There are still people going and while right now, things are lower, people are booking cash stays.

My point was that they have ways to fill RIV with cash guests to hold them over until DVC sales get back up.

 

[Deb & Bill]

...An add on purchase is something done routinely. Closing costs and fees are established. Prices are established. Existing members can already purchase minimum add-ons of 25 points (according to the current prices on DVC News). Disney has historically raised and reduced the minimum points required for purchase. According to Steve Russo in a 2009 article on MousePlanet, Disney originally set the minimum at 150, raised it to 160, and appeared to raise it to 200 in for Bay Lake Tower. I didn't know DVC existed in 2009, so this is, unfortunately, one of the best sources I had after a minute of Googling. ...

When we bought in 1997, the minimum for a first contract was 160 and it had been reduced from about 230. Somewhere along the line they reduced it to 100 because of the high price of points. People couldn't afford DVC if they had to buy 100 points and it was lowered to 50 or 75.

If you wanted to add on, you could add as few as 25 points (no financing through DVC) or 50 with financing through DVC.

 

[CastAStone]

When we bought in 1997, the minimum for a first contract was 160 and it had been reduced from about 230. Somewhere along the line they reduced it to 100 because of the high price of points. People couldn't afford DVC if they had to buy 100 points and it was lowered to 50 or 75.

If you wanted to add on, you could add as few as 25 points (no financing through DVC) or 50 with financing through DVC.

This is correct. Not sure where MousePlanet got their info. They have since re-raised the minimum to 100 for all resorts except OKW and SSR; my guide told me they are still allowed to sell first time buyers 50 points to one of those two. Not sure what makes them so special.

 

[becauseimnew]

This is correct. Not sure where MousePlanet got their info. They have since re-raised the minimum to 100 for all resorts except OKW and SSR; my guide told me they are still allowed to sell first time buyers 50 points to one of those two. Not sure what makes them so special.

That’s interesting As a first time buyer I’m looking at spending $10k, which is about what I would pay for 50 points direct. I wonder if this is how they are getting people like me to buy direct.
For us the direct benefits don’t make sense, we only go once a year. We could get 100 SSR resale points for about the same $10k. We almost accepted a 100 pt contract for $91/pt, but it at the 2019 points banked, we didn’t have plans to use them before they expired and it didn’t have 2020 points, so we decided to move on.

 

[TheHuns]

Except everything you mentioned about legal would be required for this as well before you sold that add on. So there is no change there.

DVC is explicitly not in the business of selling member benefits, but they are in the business of selling timeshares! The sale of a timeshare is a routine transaction. You can't, as a timeshare company, sell an upgrade for "incidental benefits" and not expect that to draw the ire of regulators, aggrieved members, and other corporations.

Timeshares are heavily regulated and an upgrade option would require a lot of work in determining legality, drafting upgrade contracts/ToS/agreements, and ensuring this new option didn't open liability for a lawsuit from existing members. In the same way Disney had to put legal resources on the new resale restrictions and point reallocation, they would need to allocate resources to this project. Those resources might be on other projects.

Again this is not part of the timeshare real estate transaction. Disney has tons of lawyers though.

You are correct. It definitely isn't a timeshare purchase. It's just a purchase of something that you're only allowed to buy if you own a specific timeshare, and some people who own the timeshare get it while others who buy the timeshare don't get it... also if you sell your timeshare it goes away unless the buyer pays, at a minimum, a $7,500 fee that increases with the size of their contract.

Nothing about that sounds like an incidental benefit to me. It sounds like a lawsuit magnet in the same way the OKW extension is a ticking time bomb.

When we bought in 1997, the minimum for a first contract was 160 and it had been reduced from about 230. Somewhere along the line they reduced it to 100 because of the high price of points. People couldn't afford DVC if they had to buy 100 points and it was lowered to 50 or 75.

If you wanted to add on, you could add as few as 25 points (no financing through DVC) or 50 with financing through DVC.

This is the basic premise of my argument. A lower point bar for member benefits would likely bring DVC more money than a "resale contract upgrade" that I often see tossed around on this forum.

The purpose of member benefits is to convince people to buy direct rather than resale. For existing members, you can add a minimum of 25 direct points. Any point add on under 100, however, does nothing meaningful for a resale only owner. they could get another 25-95 point resale contract for $50-$80 less per point. If the bar were lower for a promotional period, I would be willing to wager that DVC would see an increase in direct sales from existing members that missed the boat. I'd seriously consider buying 50 points direct if it meant I'd be able to get member benefits.

 

[sethschroeder]

Timeshares are heavily regulated

And everything that is regulated is controlled.

This is completely separate and a benefit of already owning a timeshare with Disney. Again completely separate and outside the confines of the timeshare aspect of things. Something already done in other locations based on owners of other time shares of "upgrading your contract".

At the same time are Gold DVC APs coming under scrutiny right now? No because they are not part of the actual timeshare but separate.

Nothing about that sounds like an incidental benefit to me. It sounds like a lawsuit magnet in the same way the OKW extension is a ticking time bomb.

Except guess what that lawsuit potential is based on HISTORICAL OWNERS.

No it is not based on people signing in to the agreement today buying resale so this is completely false.

A lower point bar for member benefits would likely bring DVC more money than a "resale contract upgrade" that I often see tossed around on this forum.

Which won't happen because 97 to 99% of members had the chance to already buy in the past before increases.

If the bar were lower for a promotional period, I would be willing to wager that DVC would see an increase in direct sales from existing members that missed the boat.

Again the percentage and number of owners who missed the boat is tiny tiny tiny. Again we are 3 years from 25 points being a requirement to get direct member benefits and 18 months from 75 points. There is so few members to worry about, maybe in 10 years time it might be worth it as I have said before.

 

[Fauntleroy]

#4 all day long- and maybe every other year each Member gets a day w/three extra FastPasses (i.e. you know every other year you’re going to have a day where you walk-in with six FastPasses).

 

[lovethesun12]

#4 all day long- and maybe every other year each Member gets a day w/three extra FastPasses (i.e. you know every other year you’re going to have a day where you walk-in with six FastPasses).

If I let my imagination run wild, I think about the possibility of paid FP+ bundles that has been rumoured. Wouldn't that be a great incentive to stay onsite, or to purchase direct if you got them for "free"...

 

[Lorana]

If I let my imagination run wild, I think about the possibility of paid FP+ bundles that has been rumoured. Wouldn't that be a great incentive to stay onsite, or to purchase direct if you got them for "free"...

I somehow feel this wouldn’t be a free perk for DVC, though, much as I’d love it.

I confess, when we “cheat on Disney” and add on Universal for a few days (which we’ve done on occasion now that our boys are teens), we’ve chosen to stay onsite at Universal to take advantage of the free Express Passes for doing so.

the only bummer is it’s limited to Hard Rock, Portofino Bay and Royal Pacific, and my youngest really wants to stay at Cabana Bay.