Exploiting the Market - PIT Rentals

[Sandisw]

First of all, thank you for doing this work. Also, Sandi and the rest should be paid, even if that is a modest honorarium. Clearly there's money coming in. And that should be shared in some way with everyone who has a defined role and work. But also look at how posting policies are phrased in transactional terms: for $X people can post X number of confirmed reservations, which clearly indicates that revenue is coming in for the type of reservations many of us find problematic, even if there are limits on those. I think that's the real rub here.

The difficult part in all of this we do need to remember is that just advertising a confirmed reservation can not be used by DVC to penalize a member until those end up in someone else’s name, because until that happens, it is still an owner’s reservation for personal use.

So, DVC has to find a way to use the language if the POS that say we don’t need their approval to rent and that we can set our own terms for renting..which we are expressly allowed…and balance that against crossing the line into a membership being a commercial one.

Can DVC or anyone say that renting one reservation on demand vs a confirmed one changes the nature of the rental process?

No question that the rental market has exploded since it’s so much easier to do with the internet. I think you have a lot more owners who rent regularly , even just a few, to offset costs who aren’t doing it as a business. And of course, that increase has also come with a increase with big time renters.

Now, renting confirmed reservations has become very popular and of course popular rooms are being taken for that purpose. So it makes sense some are frustrated with that.

DVC has a duty to monitor and enforce the no commercial memberships rule. However, are they really going to spend a lot of time and resources setting up a hard to enforce rule such as whether a name was changed in a reservation and when?

Or, should they continue to do what they have always done, and what the contract gives as examples, is look at the pattern of reservations on a membership that indicate it’s obviously not playing within the rules?

In terms of sites like this, etc that give owners a place to rent out their points, I hope they get to continue and not become a quasi enforcer of rules that don’t actually exist.

 

[StarCruzer]

Rental of existing reservations is just one example of where a commercial enterprise's aim (to reserve only the most in demand/profitable dates) is skewed from a casual owner (who is reserving for personal use, which will be shaped by a much wider variety of aims). In addition, being able to amass enough points to extract a greater value from each reservation also facilitates creation of a group with greater power to manipulate the system by deploying greater resources (whether that be people, bots...etc) dedicated to getting the "best" reservations (again, that no casual user would invest in). Bottom line, I don't think points are really "used" in the same way just because the access to the reservation system is the same. Having more points and more resources, combined with an aim to only maximizing return on each point creates a pattern of use very distinct from a casual owner.

This is my point of general frustration. If someone is legitimately making a profit off of points, then they can use their time to stalk/walk reservations that the average user simply can't--including writing programs to snag the reservations automatically. There is now an artificially inflated rental market because of this. Folks would not be able to rent points as easily if people were consistently using DVC points as intended, for their own vacations. People that rent out DVC points today would simply stay at Moderate or Value resorts IMO

Of course, I don't think we'll ever know the percent of DVC points per year that are used by non-owners. Still a little curious about it though! And definitely information Disney could pull from their system.

 

[Sandisw]

This is my point of general frustration. If someone is legitimately making a profit off of points, then they can use their time to stalk/walk reservations that the average user simply can't--including writing programs to snag the reservations automatically. There is now an artificially inflated rental market because of this. Folks would not be able to rent points as easily if people were consistently using DVC points as intended, for their own vacations. People that rent out DVC points today would simply stay at Moderate or Value resorts IMO

Of course, I don't think we'll ever know the percent of DVC points per year that are used by non-owners. Still a little curious about it though! And definitely information Disney could pull from their system.

Since owners are allowed to book rooms for friends and family as well, not sure how useful that information would be.

 

[StarCruzer]

Since owners are allowed to book rooms for friends and family as well, not sure how useful that information would be.

Oh, for sure it wouldn't be able to track rentals! It would simply be interesting to see how may points per year owners spend on themselves vs others. I'm a bit of a geek for data.

 

[Genie+]

And I don’t think it is binary. Yes there are rooms that are much harder to get no matter what but that’s not the whole story.

Renting comes with lower risk than personal use, has alot more availability to choose because they don’t need to choose from their own schedule or desires, and has alot more flexibility and less risk built in. Spec renting has everything to choose from, and of course will focus on pulling the best days out the system anytime they can.

So if you’re an owner who is looking to add a couple days to your existing reservation, and it is one of the better values across the system, your chances are much lower than they’d be if commercial use wasn’t happening on the scale it is today.

Think about it this way. 3 days open at BC studio. A bunch of owners are looking in the system but those exact dates don’t work for them. The first spec renter that comes through? No doubt they grab them because they have the whole public to find a match.

If you’re someone trying to book CCV in December, you’re competing with other personal use owners that are looking for those exact dates, and spec renters that will take anything and everything that is available.

 

[disneylandtour]

The difficult part in all of this we do need to remember is that just advertising a confirmed reservation can not be used by DVC to penalize a member until those end up in someone else’s name, because until that happens, it is still an owner’s reservation for personal use.

So, DVC has to find a way to use the language if the POS that say we don’t need their approval to rent and that we can set our own terms for renting..which we are expressly allowed…and balance that against crossing the line into a membership being a commercial one.

Can DVC or anyone say that renting one reservation on demand vs a confirmed one changes the nature of the rental process?

No question that the rental market has exploded since it’s so much easier to do with the internet. I think you have a lot more owners who rent regularly , even just a few, to offset costs who aren’t doing it as a business. And of course, that increase has also come with a increase with big time renters.

Now, renting confirmed reservations has become very popular and of course popular rooms are being taken for that purpose. So it makes sense some are frustrated with that.

DVC has a duty to monitor and enforce the no commercial memberships rule. However, are they really going to spend a lot of time and resources setting up a hard to enforce rule such as whether a name was changed in a reservation and when?

Or, should they continue to do what they have always done, and what the contract gives as examples, is look at the pattern of reservations on a membership that indicate it’s obviously not playing within the rules?

In terms of sites like this, etc that give owners a place to rent out their points, I hope they get to continue and not become a quasi enforcer of rules that don’t actually exist.

So in terms of the question at hand, it's not whether DVD should monitor this overall (they should), but should this board continue to allow posters (again the person with 8K points for rent each year) to continue to post here with clearly commercial activity. That's the question. Sure, there's nuances here and there. But saying that there are nuances with some posts doesn't negate posts that are absolutely commercial in nature. But maybe the owners of the board simply want to allow this as a means of collecting the money (paid memberships and sponsor ads) that come from it? If that's the answer, I think it would be so much simpler to say that the board needs money from prohibited activities to survive as opposed to conflate the 8k point poster with people who are trying to rent for other reasons. At a certain point, I think it would just be better to say what is.

 

[Sandisw]

So in terms of the question at hand, it's not whether DVD should monitor this overall (they should), but should this board continue to allow posters (again the person with 8K points for rent each year) to continue to post here with clearly commercial activity. That's the question. Sure, there's nuances here and there. But saying that there are nuances with some posts doesn't negate posts that are absolutely commercial in nature. But maybe the owners of the board simply want to allow this as a means of collecting the money (paid memberships and sponsor ads) that come from it? If that's the answer, I think it would be so much simpler to say that the board needs money from prohibited activities to survive as opposed to conflate the 8k point poster with people who are trying to rent for other reasons. At a certain point, I think it would just be better to say what is.

Yes, and here is why. If that owner who is advertising is a joint owner of many memberships, they may not be actually violating any rules in regards to how those reservations fall.

Sure, 8000 points is a lot but DVC allows owners to own that, and even state it’s the limit to keep use in the personal column.

So, we are back to judgments and while it would seem that owner could be breaking the rules, they may not be either.

If you make the rules too complicated for the average owner, then it defeats the purpose of having the service at all.

Of course, there are owners who would be okay with DVC defining any use of a third party but until they do, I don’t think it’s up to a private entity to make the rule for the rest of us.

 

[Chuck S]

So in terms of the question at hand, it's not whether DVD should monitor this overall (they should), but should this board continue to allow posters (again the person with 8K points for rent each year) to continue to post here with clearly commercial activity. That's the question. Sure, there's nuances here and there. But saying that there are nuances with some posts doesn't negate posts that are absolutely commercial in nature. But maybe the owners of the board simply want to allow this as a means of collecting the money (paid memberships and sponsor ads) that come from it? If that's the answer, I think it would be so much simpler to say that the board needs money from prohibited activities to survive as opposed to conflate the 8k point poster with people who are trying to rent for other reasons. At a certain point, I think it would just be better to say what is.

I think you'd be very surprised how few existing reservations we actually allow outside the 30 day arrival window here on the DIS. And how little revenue the DIS receives annually on the Platinum and Premium plans. And remember, they are NOT prohibited activities, at least not by DVC...unless someone makes 20 rentals per year per membership, by DVCs own previously stated standard. ANd if DVC did have an issue, you can bet they'd be in contact with the DISBoard powers that be.

You may not agree with it, heck I don't like seeing reservations booked months in advance for the sole purpose of speculative renting out your DVC Points, but under our contracts, we owners have every right to do that...it is liikely also a requirement to have that right under state timeshare laws. I have far fewer issues with people renting points, and making reservations, if available, at the request of prospective renters....it is extremely doubtful any owner renting points is using a bot to make those types of reservations, and every member has an equal opportunity to secure that type of reservation.

 

[mistysue]

Yes, and here is why. If that owner who is advertising is a joint owner of many memberships, they may not be actually violating any rules in regards to how those reservations fall.

Sure, 8000 points is a lot but DVC allows owners to own that, and even state it’s the limit to keep use in the personal column.

So, we are back to judgments and while it would seem that owner could be breaking the rules, they may not be either.

If you make the rules too complicated for the average owner, then it defeats the purpose of having the service at all.

Of course, there are owners who would be okay with DVC defining any use of a third party but until they do, I don’t think it’s up to a private entity to make the rule for the rest of us.

Can this conversation just be had seriously? Come on, every one of us knows a person who is renting out 8,000 points per year every year is using their membership commercially. Whether or not they have found a loophole or trick to skirt DVC attention, we all know this person has a commercial use intent at that point.

We can all agree we don't know how they are magically not drawing attention to their actions, but that is blatantly what a commercial use is. It's a reasonable question when it's some portion of their points and/or not every single year. But we are all smarter than to pretend there is nothing sketchy about renting that many points every year.

 

[Chuck S]

Can this conversation just be had seriously? Come on, every one of us knows a person who is renting out 8,000 points per year every year is using their membership commercially. Whether or not they have found a loophole or trick to skirt DVC attention, we all know this person has a commercial use intent at that point.

We can all agree we don't know how they are magically not drawing attention to their actions, but that is blatantly what a commercial use is. It's a reasonable question when it's some portion of their points and/or not every single year. But we are all smarter than to pretend there is nothing sketchy about renting that many points every year.

But it is not up to US to define what Disney considers "Commercial Renting." While we may think it definitely is, if it doesn't meet DVCs previously stated criteria on a per membership basis, what do you expect to happen?

 

[disneylandtour]

But it is not up to US to define what Disney considers "Commercial Renting." While we may think it definitely is, if it doesn't meet DVCs previously stated criteria on a per membership basis, what do you expect to happen?

If helpful, I think the conversation is more focused on what the boards here will allow or condone. I don’t think anyone is trying to speak for DVD. There are multiple rules already on the DIS rent/transfer requirements that have nothing to do with Disney rules, many of which already speak to some aspect of commercial situations.

 

[Chuck S]

If helpful, I think the conversation is more focused on what the boards here will allow or condone. I don’t think anyone is trying to speak for DVD. There are multiple rules already on the DIS rent/transfer requirements that have nothing to do with Disney rules, many of which already speak to some aspect of commercial situations.

And it appears the DIS rule you all are concerned about is whether or not we allow someone with a LOT of points to offer them for rent. So say we put a 1,000 point limit on each rental thread, that would still give them 6,000 points to rent over the course of a year, with a Gold plan. It would be the same, just broken up for a few more months. Or even if we had a 1,000 point limit per year per poster., and they post a thread offering 1,000 points. Would we then limit them to one thread per year that is only open for one month? What if they say they didn't rent them all and would like to post another thread?

Consider this, without the Board having the ability to track each individual reservation made for renters using points, it would totally be an unenforceable thing. And would take a lot more moderator hours.

For instance, say someone offers a 1,000 points for rental. We have no way to track reservations made, they could be renting far more points and no one would be the wiser, would they? Trying to impose a limit on the number of points would be an exercise in futility.

Where as them offering existing reservations, and limiting the number of those threads, along with NOT allowing them to change details of the reservation in the thread title. makes regulating existing reservations much more practical.

 

[smileyanna]

If the 8000 point posts on Disboards bothers you, it might might help to remember the reality of trying to rent 8000 points using Disboards: constantly responding to availability requests for 130 points at a time, dealing with renters who don’t understand the importance/process of inputting guest names accurately to match with Disney’s system and repeatedly need changes, keeping track of orphan points across contracts, getting ghosted when it’s time to sign a contract or transfer money.

Disboards is better suited to smaller scale rentals. There are rougher ways to make some money (and I get the math), but 8000 point retail renting here seems like a particularly annoying method, or inefficient if this task is hired out.

 

[CarolMN]

Yep, it's not any boards responsibility to police this overall. But should a board profit through sponsors and paid accounts that then help allow these activities to continue? That's a different question.

If helpful, I think the conversation is more focused on what the boards here will allow or condone. I don’t think anyone is trying to speak for DVD. There are multiple rules already on the DIS rent/transfer requirements that have nothing to do with Disney rules, many of which already speak to some aspect of commercial situations.

We need to remember that sponsors (and ads) make these boards possible. The DIS is privately owned. Moderators are unpaid volunteers. The Rent/Transfer Board has been provided as a courtesy to the DIS DVC Community.

The revenue from Rental Plans is a very small portion of DIS revenue. When Doc (WebmasterDoc) added it up several years ago, it was less than $1000 (IIRC). If I have time, I will add it up year to date and post the amount.

IMO, confirmed reservations offered on the DIS that are more than 30 days in the future are an insignificant number of the wider market. YMMV

 

[CarolMN]

As of 10/23/2024 there were -

16 PLATINUM Rental Plans purchased (124.95). These allow ONE confirmed reservation to be offered more than 30 days prior to check in. That is $1999.20 total YTD. Most of these seem to be for posters who cannot use the reseration originally made for themselves.

6 PREMIUM Rental Plans purchased ($249.95) These allow up to THREE confirmed reservations to be offered more than 30 days prior to check in. That is $1499.70 total YTD. Only a few of these use all 3 entitlements - not all confirmed reservations rent in the 30 days allotted for a thread to remain open.

Those of you who know what it costs to run a site like the DIS, know that $3500 is a tiny, tiny percentage of what it actually costs.

I don't have time right now to add up the revenue from the SILVER and GOLD rental plans that do not allow confirmed reservations to be offered if they are more than 30 days prior to check in. There is no revenue associated with those posters who qualify to have a free plan.

 

[Sandisw]

Can this conversation just be had seriously? Come on, every one of us knows a person who is renting out 8,000 points per year every year is using their membership commercially. Whether or not they have found a loophole or trick to skirt DVC attention, we all know this person has a commercial use intent at that point.

We can all agree we don't know how they are magically not drawing attention to their actions, but that is blatantly what a commercial use is. It's a reasonable question when it's some portion of their points and/or not every single year. But we are all smarter than to pretend there is nothing sketchy about renting that many points every year.

Do you know how many memberships those points are in? Because the current rules from DVC and the contract language IS related to a membership.

Sure, it is a lot of points, but if those are spread across a lot of memberships with multiple owners and each membership holds a number of reservations that DVC says is okay, then it may not be they are breaking the rules.

People may not like the rules DVC sets in place but they are what they are.

Does it seem like they are? Sure. But only the owner and DVC knows what is happening. Do you know if this owners accounts have not been reviewed by DVC? For all we know, they have and DVC has determined those memberships are not being used under the commercial purposes clause.

Which comes back to the whole question. Should DIS or any brokers be the ones to judge if a member is in violation and set arbitrary rules that don’t exist when using their services?

Let’s be frank.., some beleive any level of renting that uses a third party should be deemed commercial, or that charging over market value should be commercial and even offering a confirmed reservation should be against the rules.

But that is NOT what the contract prohibits. It prohibits using your memberhsip for a commercial reason, as a business. And those are not currently part of DVC enforcement policy.

And you are right, we can agree or disagree with how DVC defines and enforced if.

However. since no third party is privy, nor should they be, into how those 8000 points are structured, its not up to them to choose rules that prevent someone from renting their points

 

[mistysue]

But it is not up to US to define what Disney considers "Commercial Renting." While we may think it definitely is, if it doesn't meet DVCs previously stated criteria on a per membership basis, what do you expect to happen?

No, it is not up to us to define it, commercial is a real word with an actual meaning. "concerned with or engaged in commerce, making or intending to make a profit" -
My comment to Sandy is because people discuss this and her response is basically "well, we don't know if that person meant to be commercial" - allow it or don't, I don't really care, but can we stop playing games around pretending we don't know what commercial means or that there is ANYBODY who actually doesn't believe a person buying 8,000 points for the purpose of renting them didn't mean that to be commercial? All it does it derail people from having a conversation and from listening to your completely practical "how is the world are we to police this" argument. It's unfortunate DVD leaves us in the position to talk about it in the first place, but to me it's one of those "she's going to do it somewhere, might as well be paying for the forum I use I guess" situations.

 

[mistysue]

Do you know how many memberships those points are in? Because the current rules from DVC and the contract language IS related to a membership.

Sure, it seems to trigger something’s but if those are spread across 10 membership, and each membership only holds less than 20, which is the last clear language DVC used, then it is not a violation

People may not like the rules DVC sets in place but they are what they are.

Here is an example of why they can’t apply across memberships with different owners. If my kids decide they want to rent all the points on our joint membership and that membership gets flagged, DVC can’t shut down the other memberships that I own without them because those memberships are not being used outside the rules

So, unless someone is privy to other peoples memberships and what they are doing on each one, we don’t know that someone here advertising 8000 points is outside the current rules set by DvC.

Does it seem like they are? Sure. But only the owner and DVc know what is happening. For all we know DVc has reviewed those memberships and deemed they are not doing things they should not.

Which comes back to the whole question. Should DIS brokers be the ones to judge if a member is in violation and set arbitrary rules that don’t exist.

My issue is that you keep trying to argue it's not commercial activity. It absolutely is because commercial is a definable word and renting out that many points every year is a commercial activity.
How the person is getting around the rules is a separate issue, but the person is still participating in commercial activity.

 

[Sandisw]

My issue is that you keep trying to argue it's not commercial activity. It absolutely is because commercial is a definable word and renting out that many points every year is a commercial activity.
How the person is getting around the rules is a separate issue, but the person is still participating in commercial activity.

I’ll say it again, if it is not against the contract and DVCs definiton of what makes a membership a commercial one, then all other definitions don’t matter.

It’s only in relation to the contract that matters. And it’s not the DIS job to say that someone offering 8000 points is violating the contract because they may not be.

And, I’ll hammer home the per membership point every time because legally they can only apply the rules to the membership and not an individual owner and what they may or may not do across multiple ones.

 

[mistysue]

I’ll say it again, if it is not against the contract and DVCs definiton of what makes a membership a commercial one, then all other definitions don’t matter.

It’s only in relation to the contract that matters. And it’s not the DIS job to say that someone offering 8000 points is violating the contract because they may not be.

And, I’ll hammer home the per membership point every time because legally they can only apply the rules to the membership and not an individual owner and what they may or may not do across multiple ones.

See you are ignoring what I am saying to argue an unrelated point. This is what happened in that overly long thread months ago as well. Against rules or not is not what defines a commercial activity. This person has figured out how to do commercial activity within whatever rules they are working with. It's still commercial.
I didn't say the DIS has to police it, I'm just saying we should stop pretending we don't know it's commercial use, because even the faintest amount of common sense tells us it is.