Possible. Using that logic it could mean the last DVC resort that's not already in the works which would be HI. Other possible factors include that the number of points required is likely to be high enough it won't matter, that the profit overall is expected to be better with larger minimums or that those smaller contracts are causing MS aggravation and they've asked for help. Or they could simply raise the minimum and then offer specials later if they wanted. I'm sure there are other possible issues we could add to the list. Personally I wouldn't read too much into it other than DVD has decided it's better for them to sell raise the minimum at this time. Truthfully the 25 points contracts never made sense for MOST people, even 50 likely doesn't for BLT and ? HI.
I can understand the rationale behind this from a cost saving standpoint. Disney has just as much overhead in a 25 point contract as they do a 200 point contract, therefore the smaller contracts are a drag on margin. In slow economies, its very easy for companies to allow their margins to fall in exchange for maintaining sales volume. The problem is when things turn around, its much harder to get margins back to the way they were. 
Still there are increased sales costs to DVD per point for smaller contract and it's DVD, not DVC, that's doing this. It is still more costly for DVC to manage smaller contracts than larger ones on a per point basis overall no matter how many total points you have it's just that the admin costs of a single 25 pt (or whatever #) emphasis the admin cost to the extreme. However for a member who owns a single 25 points contract, they are likely far less needy overall than most members even if you include the inherent cost of carrying a member as a constant. They are usually very well informed members who know what they want have everything worked out well ahead of time. So the same admin cost for having a single contract as someone who has 500 points in a single contract but likely less MS time and attention. OTOH, those that are smaller contract owners (75-150) may be younger or trying to stretch the dollar and I would agree that are likely (I have no data) to be more costly on a per points basis. And I would say that anyone under 200-250 points is actually a small point owner in many ways. I don't know the average but anyone who owns under the average is likely being subsidized by the rest of the owners. ONE way around this is to change the fee structure to a set amount plus a per point charge, something like $250 plus $4 a point rather than the strict per point cost.
A question for Dean.......is there any other benefit derived from this move other than administrative cost savings? Does it do anything to enhance the ownership of DVC?
Right I know that. Sloppy shorthand.
