DVC Survey

[cruisehopeful]

I happen to know at least one person with more than 1000 direct points (not me) who has been telling their guide that Disney needs to have some status or perks for people with more direct points than the minimum to get DVC-Y to make the value more than resale beyond restricted resorts.

I have to agree with the 1000 point direct member. There's no compelling reason to buy direct again at that point for most people. DVC should give something special with another direct add on, but it doesn't need to be permanent. They can give a LLMP, a BTS tour, a meal at Club 33, for example when adding on X amount of points.

Of course, that would cost money to the sales department vs. giving people the option to pay more for a longer booking window. Seems like a bogus reward to me to be given the opportunity to pay more.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I have to agree with the 1000 point direct member. There's no compelling reason to buy direct again at that point for most people. DVC should give something special with another direct add on, but it doesn't need to be permanent. They can give a LLMP, a BTS tour, a meal at Club 33, for example when adding on X amount of points.

Of course, that would cost money to the sales department vs. giving people the option to pay more for a longer booking window. Seems like a bogus reward to me to be given the opportunity to pay more.

Free AP when you own 1k direct points.

 

[atthebeachclub]

I actually would love to see a system that gives home resort owners priority for waitlists. All waitlists get manually looked at anyway.

Or more waitlists for your home resort!

 

[AstroBlasters]

Or more waitlists for your home resort!

How about auto walking

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

After 30 years, I am so tired of DVC playing with us, messing with point charts, allowing mega renters to snag all the availability at 7 months and so on.... At some point though, I will be too pissed off to care and that will be the end.

We are approaching that point. At the beginning of this year I wanted to pick up another 125-150 points (pushing us close to but not quite at the 1000 pt club) because I love BCV and our family is outgrowing the 1BD…but after all the sound and fury but not doing a single thing to stop commercial renters (also making G+ to LLMP which is worse for our family), I can’t justify putting more money in the system that stresses me out and feels unfair. The DVC website doesn’t reliably work for me on any browser or my mobile phone, and my DVC membership honestly has been making me like Disney less. Probably going to sell 125 points instead of buying them, and then keep my direct points, BCV + VGC resale, and just visit less.

I happen to know at least one person with more than 1000 direct points (not me) who has been telling their guide that Disney needs to have some status or perks for people with more direct points than the minimum to get DVC-Y to make the value more than resale beyond restricted resorts.

It’s definitely not me, but this makes total sense (no idea what’s wrong with DVC) that some perks should be tiered by direct point total and also by recency. I own two separate contracts with enough points to get me Y card independently…why would I buy more direct unless/until they build on crescent lake again? But if I only needed 50-100 more direct points to qualify for a guaranteed MM of my choice or a once-per-stay bonus LLSP, I’d open my wallet so fast.

I think having some tiered benefits based on number of direct points could nudge people to do add on points direct instead of resale…. and it really wouldn’t cost Disney anything besides the lawyer fees to adjust the documents and the tech fees to adjust the software.

Let’s face it, there is a relatively small pool of Americans who can buy DVC direct and also want to spend $30k on a Disney timeshare. They already know who a lot of us are— I don’t think they should take stuff existing perks away from resale owners (more than half my points are resale!) but it’s also business 101 to come up with ways to entice your best customers to keep coming back. RIV/VDH/CFW sleep around points do NOT move the needle for many of us, and LSL doesn’t look better than BRV/CCV to me, and once you have 400 direct points, it’s a little crazy to say “I’ll buy another 150 direct just in case Disney builds such an awesome property down the road in 10 years I want to stay there more than 8 nights each year…but also not buy it as a home resort!”

Having a small recurring (or one time awesome!) perk for people at the 200pt/300pt/400pt mark would encourage many of us to shift direct for the next 50-150 points…and then maybe a bigger advantage for those who own 500+ direct and 1000+ direct? It would also fund a ROFR campaign as people routinely bite off 25-50 point contracts at their home resorts.

I do see a downside though that FOMO-ing people to buy more direct points for perks would probably also lead to them renting more.

 

[Cfabar1]

I am struggling to picture how this can interact with home resort booking priority. Would/could it be something like this?

11 months - owners can book their resort
10 months - owners with 500+ points can book at any resort
7 months - owners with less than 500 points can book any resort

Does the booking window for the initial reservation have to be equal for all members when using their home resort priority window? Maybe the POS doesn't make it clear? If there isn't a home resort priority window that owners can use in practice I'd imagine that getting really ugly for the entire system. Why buy any points other than the cheapest possible points?

 

[PolyRob]

I am struggling to picture how this can interact with home resort booking priority. Would/could it be something like this?

11 months - owners can book their resort
10 months - owners with 500+ points can book at any resort
7 months - owners with less than 500 points can book any resort

Does the booking window for the initial reservation have to be equal for all members when using their home resort priority window? Maybe the POS doesn't make it clear? If there isn't a home resort priority window that owners can use in practice I'd imagine that getting really ugly for the entire system. Why buy any points other than the cheapest possible points?

The POS states there must be at least a one month home resort priority booking window and all home resort owners will have the same booking window on a first come, first served basis.

Disney can change the length of the home resort priority window as long as it gives us at least one month of exclusive access before other Members. That's why it's important to buy where you want to stay because at the end of the day that is all we're truly guaranteed.

 

[zavandor]

The POS states there must be at least a one month home resort priority booking window and all home resort owners will have the same booking window on a first come, first served basis.

Disney can change the length of the home resort priority window as long as it gives us at least one month of exclusive access before other Members. That's why it's important to buy where you want to stay because at the end of the day that is all we're truly guaranteed.

And yet, the question in the survey makes very clear that they're investigating a 12 months option for a fee. How can they reconcile that?
It's very clear, I've highlighted in your screenshot the FCFS part.
It's true that the POS doesn't explicitly forbid to have two different booking windows for home resort priority, but if that is the basis, then calling it a stretch is an euphemism.

Also, let's remember, the Management company, who is responsible to make this kind of decisions, is a fiduciary of the membership. They must act for the benefit of the whole membership. Asking for a fee (probably going into Disney's pockets) to have an earlier booking window, would greatly benefit Disney and a minority of owners, for the detriment of everyone else.
If the fee is small enough that a majority of owners will use it, then if everyone has a booking privilege , then no one has a booking privilege, the booking window just becomes 12 months. But then the only net result is that Disney makes a bunch of money.

ETA: the only explanation is that would be for future resorts only and it'll have to written in the POS.

 

[stat]

Asking for a fee (probably going into Disney's pockets)

Would this not go into the resorts' coffers? There are income line items in the dues budgets (breakage, interest income, late fees, etc.), and this fee would be cleanly tied to home resorts, so maybe this is in that category and could slightly lower dues for everyone. Maybe wishful thinking but

 

[pzw90]

And yet, the question in the survey makes very clear that they're investigating a 12 months option for a fee. How can they reconcile that?
It's very clear, I've highlighted in your screenshot the FCFS part.

I wonder if its as @Brian Noble says, Disney will follow other developers. in this case they have home priority at 13 months (is it Wyndham or Marriott that does it) and then you can pay to have a 12 month window.

 

[J-Dog]

I have to agree with the 1000 point direct member. There's no compelling reason to buy direct again at that point for most people. DVC should give something special with another direct add on, but it doesn't need to be permanent. They can give a LLMP, a BTS tour, a meal at Club 33, for example when adding on X amount of points.

Of course, that would cost money to the sales department vs. giving people the option to pay more for a longer booking window. Seems like a bogus reward to me to be given the opportunity to pay more.

I agree with you that perks would be a good way to get DVD to incentivize people to add-on more points.

The perks that you mention would be fine. The "perk" of a 12-month window, either for extra fees or for having more points, to me, is the same issue that I had with the "cut the line at the lounges" perk with MMB.

Adding a perk is fine if it is strictly an additional gift, experience, tour, etc, but when those perks are something that actively deteriorates other owners' use of the product they bought, then that's a problem.

Making people who didn't buy MMB wait longer to get into the lounges because the finite space in the lounge is being used by people who get in quicker than you makes that product worse for people who didn't buy MMB. And making a 12-month window for high-point holders, when it used to be 11-months for everyone, would make 11-month availablity worse for those that don't have the "right" number of points.

Not okay.

 

[heynowirv]

I received a DVC survey today asking what additional benefits would impact my decision to purchase DVC. Two of the options posted concerned me as current owner.
1 - early booking for a fee. Which would allow booking 12 months in advance
2 - booking based on number of points owned
I am noy happy with either potential option as both take away the even playing field for all owners.
Did anyone else receive this survey?

Was this an email or letter? Obviously I received neither.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Was this an email or letter? Obviously I received neither.

Email

 

[lowlight]

I think having some tiered benefits based on number of direct points could nudge people to do add on points direct instead of resale…. and it really wouldn’t cost Disney anything besides the lawyer fees to adjust the documents and the tech fees to adjust the software.

I could see a tiered system for non-home resort booking like some others have described above….

I do NOT want that…. I would prefer simplicity…. but if we look at the parks and the various lighting lanes and after hours events, etc then we know how this is going…..

Oh you are 100% correct, it makes sense for Disney to do it and it could definitely be an incentive to buy direct to access the "next tier". It is logical that in a down economy like we have, you are more likely to get your whales to add on than you are to attract new buyers, so why not do more to incentivize them to add on direct instead of through the resale market. I also think if they are at the survey point, it's likely to figure out how to present it to the membership in the most easily palatable and easily defensible manner, versus actually soliciting genuine feedback or approval percentages. Disney has long shown that if it makes money, collateral damage be damned.

Tiered systems work until they don't. Having TSA pre check was great, until it wasn't. Then you can bump up to Clear+, but I've seen a bit of crowding at those scanners at times. Now you can even bump up to Clear+ Concierge. Forget about logistics, from a purely emotional point of view, tiered systems create a lot of agitation and discontent between haves and have nots. When I pay for a LL and watch a VIP tour skip ahead of me in the lightning lane, it's not a great feeling, same as waiting in a standby and watching those with LL go ahead. I know they aren't supposed to skip to the front of the LL, but I've seen it happen on many rides.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Oh you are 100% correct, it makes sense for Disney to do it and it could definitely be an incentive to buy direct to access the "next tier". It is logical that in a down economy like we have, you are more likely to get your whales to add on than you are to attract new buyers, so why not do more to incentivize them to add on direct instead of through the resale market. I also think if they are at the survey point, it's likely to figure out how to present it to the membership in the most easily palatable and easily defensible manner, versus actually soliciting genuine feedback or approval percentages. Disney has long shown that if it makes money, collateral damage be damned.

Tiered systems work until they don't. Having TSA pre check was great, until it wasn't. Then you can bump up to Clear+, but I've seen a bit of crowding at those scanners at times. Now you can even bump up to Clear+ Concierge. Forget about logistics, from a purely emotional point of view, tiered systems create a lot of agitation and discontent between haves and have nots. When I pay for a LL and watch a VIP tour skip ahead of me in the lightning lane, it's not a great feeling, same as waiting in a standby and watching those with LL go ahead. I know they aren't supposed to skip to the front of the LL, but I've seen it happen on many rides.

agree with your thoughts there.

Unless we want to take Disney Parks private and run it as a utility company with 10% profit margin caps then I don’t think anything will change as long as there is a supply/demand imbalance tilted in favor of the one controlling the supply.

 

[airjay75]

This is all very interesting. I did not receive a survey. Can't say I really like any of the things they're throwing around. And, as someone who has recently purchased quite a few direct points, I would be incredibly angry if they changed the rules in any way that seemed like a detriment to my ownership. If I knew people were going to be able to pay to jump ahead of me at 11 months at my home resort for which I have recently spent a lot of money, that would be infuriating. Sure, if they want to throw extra or new benefits my way on account of the direct points I own, I wouldn't turn it down, but I also don't like the idea of harming other owners to make that happen.

Seems like there are so many ways they can make direct ownership more enticing without harming other owners - but, OTOH, most of the ways I can think of would cost them money. I'm sure they prefer things like the resale restrictions - didn't cost them more money, made direct more enticing, but it did harm future resale owners. At least with that though, people knew what they were getting going into it. Some of these things seem like changing the rules in the middle of the game, and that seems dirty - imagine selling RIV without resale restrictions and (assuming it were legal) telling folks who had already bought, actually, if you sell, the new owner will face these restrictions.

I guess I can also see a conundrum for them with direct owners who they want to entice to buy more direct points. After a certain point, you're just not going to get people to buy any more direct points - if they want more firepower, they'll buy resale. But, is most of their revenue from people who buy a lot of direct points or from what I think are many, many more people buying a 150, 200, 250 direct points. But, maybe they see more money to be had by bilking direct owners out of more money. Would be interesting to see some of their revenue analysis and estimates in this regard.

 

[Dis_Ohana5]

I just bought direct and find this concerning. If I wanted a teired Marriot time share with no resale value that's where I would have shopped. I can't think of a tiered service or product that doesn't degrade in service and quality fairly quickly over time it's inevitable.