bwvBound
DVC SSR & other timeshare
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
Interesting thoughts.
re: the section in bold, above; Minimum point balance
Here is how another major points system, launched just prior to DVC, addresses this issue. Worldmark sets "5000 credits" (aka points) as the minimum account size. 5000 credits will secure a studio unit for 7 nights in "white-season" (mid-demand in a points chart that offers only three seasons: Red (High), White (Mid) and Blue (Low) or a 2BR unit for 7 nights in "blue-season (low-demand)).
There are no accounts smaller than 5000 credits. However, you may buy or sell, both privately (resale) and direct, in increments as little as 1000 credits. I've purchased 2000, when needed, and twice sold chunks of just 1000 credits.
If buying 5000 or more credits, either direct or resale, you have the choice of keeping the purchase as a separate account (new/additional membership) or merging them into an existing account. If buying fewer than 5000 credits you must merge them into an existing account.
If DVC had implemented, or could introduce a similar one retroactively, it might set a minimum ownership at 100 points (semi-random number). No one could close on the purchase of a contract with fewer than 100 points if they were not already an owner of 100+ points. However, small contracts could be purchased by existing members. In reality, this isn't likely to happen for at least two reasons: (a) DVC contracts are maintained separately and not "merged" into an owner's account balance; (b) DVC historically honors (grandfathers) its past policies.
re: the section in red above; guest's need/want
I do not feel that a points-based system must accommodate a guest's minimal need or want. Rather, I feel it must accommodate the maximum. That is, in this view, nobody truly requires a studio. While the studio might meet their minimal requirements/need ... any available unit in the system does the same. (Exception: for reasons that escape my comprehension, DVC chose to allow 5 in some studios but only 4 in some 1BR units. This occupancy inversion negates 1BR units from filling the minimum requirement for some guests. In this case, the guest may still choose a 2BR, 3BR or present specialty unit type (Beach Cottage, Treehouse, Bungalow or Cabin).)
The guest who truly wants a studio should be prepared to be content when they can book a studio but also ready/willing to accept a larger unit if these are available for their given dates. Put otherwise, flexibility works both ways: the points system offers flexibility in location, unit size, length of stay, arrival date; and likewise the guest must also remain flexible when booking. If their desired combo of location + unit size + length of stay + arrival date aren't available then they might adjust one or more criteria when booking a reservation. The system is designed to fit all the members, somewhere, each year. Some members might have to choose between booking a shorter length of stay in a larger unit type or allowing their points to expire (go to 'breakage') to maintain balance in the system.
re: the section in purple above; building resorts on actual usage
Quite a worthy goal, can it truly be done? Can each new resort, going forward as you placed that stipulation, truly meet both the needs of the 'home resort' owner and the fancies of the larger membership? Perhaps DVC's 'home resort' policy might be hindrance in this effort especially given DVC's recent history of flooding sales with the building of expensive (high point value) specialty units like the Bungalows.
Good thoughts! Thanks for adding these to the dialog.
Last edited:
