DVCnews May direct sales article

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

We just aren't really Polynesian people...

For some reason this made me hear “Poly People!!” the way they sing “party people” at the beginning of “whoomp there it is.”

And I think the song energy fits — frenetic, chaos, fun…when we next stay there, I’m going to say/sing it at my kids as we come up to the port cochere.

 

[Girlstar30]

Shhh, we don't talk about our Disney Wives

#DVCMustang
#FeistyDVCchicks

Feisty DvC Chicks: Instead of arguing with your wife, you can sit here and argue with us

 

[Girlstar30]

We have talked in our household ad nauseam and decided we are not interested in Poly tower. We are VGF people through and through. Why:
- Dining Options
- Very walkable to Poly if we want to visit
- Bigger rooms
- Jetted tub
- Overall a kinder point chart
- Less hectic/more relaxed feel -especially in the DVC building
- Closer to MK when walking (which is how we usually do it)
- Just like the feel of the resort more than Poly

Future contracts we acquire are likely to be:
- Wilderness Lodge (coin toss on which way to go is better)

- Vero Beach
OR
- Hilton Head

- Old Key West


We just aren't really Polynesian people...

No Riv

 

[Girlstar30]

For some reason this made me hear “Poly People!!” the way they sing “party people” at the beginning of “whoomp there it is.”

And I think the song energy fits — frenetic, chaos, fun…when we next stay there, I’m going to say/sing it at my kids as we come up to the port cochere.

There needs to be a dvc parody video with this

 

[tx911]

Feisty DvC Chicks: Instead of arguing with your wife, you can sit here and argue with us

Better yet, both!

 

[Cfabar1]

No Riv

Not at least until we wind down our Marriott points....

For the right price resale RIV could motivate us to buy.... Direct would be tough... and DW is not a huge fan of RIV... I could be persuaded, so far she is unpersuadable....

 

[Sandisw]

The thing is that Disney receives certain incomes when the make the original direct sale. They get the revenue from selling the points and from regular payment of dues. Those 2 sources are permanent, whether the original points are kept by the original purchaser, or they are sold to another purchaser via resale. The annual dues are then picked up by the new owner. So that is all neutral for Disney. They made their money, and they keep their money. The ownership of points simply changes via a real estate transaction.

The problem with me is the Disney is not satisfied they made the money made. They want to make MORE money. They are a major corporation, with corporate objects, despite all the happy talk.

But don't get me wrong, making money is important so that they can continue to provide the family entertainment. It is just that their method for making more money should be focused on continuing to improve the product rather than taking punitive actions against people that buy their product on the real estate market.

Just for others about dues. Part of our dues pays for DVC to manage the program.

It funds the website, the MS call center, acccouitng, and all the logistics that come with it.

They get paid a straight 12% fee of operating costs to do so. So, while I am sure they make profit. It’s not like all the dues go to DVC.

The membership extras come from DVD…which is the development division and not DVC.

Those are funded out of their marketing budget and nothing to do with dues.

That is why they can offer to just those who purchase directly from them.

 

[Girlstar30]

Just for others about dues. Part of our dues pays for DVC to manage the program.

It funds the website, the MS call center, acccouitng, and all the logistics that come with it.

They get paid a straight 12% fee of operating costs to do so. So, while I am sure they make profit. It’s not like all the dues go to DVC.

The membership extras come from DVD…which is the development division and not DVC.

Those are funded out of their marketing budget and nothing to do with dues.

That is why they can offer to just those who purchase directly from them.

I want a partial refund for paying for the operation of the inoperable website

 

[AstroBlasters]

Not at least until we wind down our Marriott points....

For the right price resale RIV could motivate us to buy.... Direct would be tough... and DW is not a huge fan of RIV... I could be persuaded, so far she is unpersuadable....

At least if she tries RIV on resale points a few times and really doesn’t like it you can use them somewhere else at 7m…. Oh…. wait….

 

[AstroBlasters]

We know you got direct primarily for the sparkly Aulani wristband!

I have run the math forward and backward. For some people direct will make sense, but for my family it would be SO much harder to break even with direct. Having more points is so nice with DVC too. It gives you a ton more flexibility. I think the value of 150 direct total vs 200+ resale is firmly in resale’s side except in a few circumstances.

Um…. I just spent $1000 a night for an Ocean View Parlor Suite…. why don’t I get a sparkly band?!?

Well, this injustice will never occur again! I’ll show you! Here is $36,000!

 

[maui22]

Perks can and do change. I recommend people find the old thread about the free valet parking perk being taken away.

Personally, I have always wondered why DVD has not moved toward a timed and level perk approach. Buy x direct points within the last __ years to get ___. Buy x + y points within ___ years and you reach another level. Etc

For example, if I bought 200 points 30 years ago but haven’t bought since, how am I benefiting DVD?

 

[Brian Noble]

Resale still lights up purple at the tapstyles so you don't even get that only as a blue card

Ah but exchange guests who aren’t owners don’t even get that!

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Perks can and do change. I recommend people find the old thread about the free valet parking perk being taken away.

Personally, I have always wondered why DVD has not moved toward a timed and level perk approach. Buy x direct points within the last __ years to get ___. Buy x + y points within ___ years and you reach another level. Etc

For example, if I bought 200 points 30 years ago but haven’t bought since, how am I benefiting DVD?

This makes sense. As a DVC direct member, I want all perks at 150. As a shareholder, I also think perks should be at least somewhat proportional to direct points owned but wasn’t sure how they would/could weed out grandfathered resale. I think it would be problematic to give more benefits to someone siting on 500 resale SSR from a decade ago than someone who bought 300 direct last year.

I own 350 direct points (and more than 350 resale), Disney could drive that direct number to 500 within a few years pretty easily by unlocking some new tier of perks or even just priority access to existing perks at 500. Similarly, unlocking a perk for a year or two after purchasing 50 points could keep us adding on over time.

 

[BrianLo]

It’s not just about being greedy, it’s also about preventing DVC resale market from becoming the official seller of contracts, not DVD. As the resale market grows and especially as they’ve gravitated towards a series of add on projects, they need something to incentivize. There was literally no reason to not buy resale before.

That or re-education fees, a bunch of incentives is far more palatable.

 

[dontae]

Just for others about dues. Part of our dues pays for DVC to manage the program.

It funds the website, the MS call center, accounting, and all the logistics that come with it.

They get paid a straight 12% fee of operating costs to do so. So, while I am sure they make profit. It’s not like all the dues go to DVC.

The membership extras come from DVD…which is the development division and not DVC.

Those are funded out of their marketing budget and nothing to do with dues.

That is why they can offer to just those who purchase directly from them.

Thanks for that information, but just to make a point. In the beginning all points are sold direct. They have to be sold direct first to even get into the resale market. Thereby the DVD made their money from the original sale. It is already available and in their marketing budget. They simply choose not to offer membership extras to resale purchasers even though they have the money in their budget to do so. So, they have the money but suspend providing extras once the original owner sells their points.

Just seems to me they would be much better off in the long run to focus on enhancing the value of their product rather than taking the punitive approach to devalue one element of their product.

If they took the positive approach, it is likely that the resale market would be stronger. They could use this as part of their sales pitch for direct sales. You can see how strong our product is by how well it holds it value in the resale market. And then they could ROFR as much as they want to in order to take points out of the resale market and pull them back into the direct market.

Just seems to me that the positive approach could be better than the punitive approach to devalue their own product.

 

[pzw90]

Thanks for that information, but just to make a point. In the beginning all points are sold direct. They have to be sold direct first to even get into the resale market. Thereby the DVD made their money from the original sale. It is already available and in their marketing budget. They simply choose not to offer membership extras to resale purchasers even though they have the money in their budget to do so. So, they have the money but suspend providing extras once the original owner sells their points.

Just seems to me they would be much better off in the long run to focus on enhancing the value of their product rather than taking the punitive approach to devalue one element of their product.

If they took the positive approach, it is likely that the resale market would be stronger. They could use this as part of their sales pitch for direct sales. You can see how strong our product is by how well it holds it value in the resale market. And then they could ROFR as much as they want to in order to take points out of the resale market and pull them back into the direct market.

Just seems to me that the positive approach could be better than the punitive approach to devalue their own product.

They need to differentiate their product from resale. If there were no restrictions, yeah resale prices would go up to near direct minus some small difference to account for the length of the process, fees, missing points, risk of points being misrepresented, etc.

If direct and resale were the same then the only way Disney would ever sell points is for when a new resort opens up and the only way to get it is through DVC. Yes, and from people who don't know resale exists.

In some ways the restrictions are good because it lowers the entry point for many people. Buy cheaper and try it out, if you like what you have, buy more. Don't like it, sell it, take less of a bath then selling a direct purchase. If you feel like you're missing out, buy direct.

They could use this as part of their sales pitch for direct sales. You can see how strong our product is by how well it holds it value in the resale market.

And watch people leave to buy the cheaper product that is no different. Would never happen

 

[jksung5295]

Ah but exchange guests who aren’t owners don’t even get that!

didn't know that was a thing.... looks like i have a lot to learn about finally being a DVC member. instead of just exchanging in all the time.

 

[E2ME2]

I am so sorry if DW was in reference to you wife. I thought you were referring to your Disney sales associate. lol

I am in need of a DVC sales rep that you/anyone trusts. I am nervous about being randomly placed with one I do not trust or has terrible communication skills, etc

We have a new guide, as of this past January. She is a pleasure to work with, and i would gladly give you her contact info if you send me a direct request.

 

[DougEMG]

I have no problem with resale owners not having access to perks as those perks are not paid for by DVC members but by DVC marketing.

What I do have a problem with is the restriction on the ability of DLH and RIV resale owners to use their points to trade outside their resort ( I am a resale owner at both those resorts and was aware of the resale restrictions before I bought). My main beef is that I don't believe that DVC has any system in place for blocking out the points that resale owners own from being booked by non-resort owners. As an extreme example if all the points at RIV are owned by resale owners, then in my view no non-RIV owner should ever be able to book into the RIV. In other words trading should only be allowed on a 1 out for 1 in basis. This was never an issue before when everyone could trade everywhere, but in my view it is an issue now.

 

[Mouseforward]

I have no problem with resale owners not having access to perks as those perks are not paid for by DVC members but by DVC marketing.

What I do have a problem with is the restriction on the ability of DLH and RIV resale owners to use their points to trade outside their resort ( I am a resale owner at both those resorts and was aware of the resale restrictions before I bought). My main beef is that I don't believe that DVC has any system in place for blocking out the points that resale owners own from being booked by non-resort owners. As an extreme example if all the points at RIV are owned by resale owners, then in my view no non-RIV owner should ever be able to book into the RIV. In other words trading should only be allowed on a 1 out for 1 in basis. This was never an issue before when everyone could trade everywhere, but in my view it is an issue now.

They are counting on the new restricted resorts spreading out the pain. That and so many people who own direct RIV are so upside down in disney debt for their points that they wont be selling soon.