Far fetched?? Anyone else hear this?

[Dean]

Of course they are; just like all zebras are not identical but they are still zebras.

There are far more differences than that. Ignoring each's individual flavor and different people's personal preferences, there are still differences that can be quantified using objective criteria much as AAA or Mobile or the unofficial guide might use. Simply using rack rates is a fairly representative method unto itself which likely mirror's other rating methods. I know there are those out there that would like to think them all equal other than personal preference and it simply isn't true.

What separate category, they classify them all Deluxe Villas,

The point was they separate out the villas from the deluxe hotels and put them into their own category.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

There are far more differences than that. Ignoring each's individual flavor and different people's personal preferences, there are still differences that can be quantified using objective criteria much as AAA or Mobile or the unofficial guide might use. Simply using rack rates is a fairly representative method unto itself which likely mirror's other rating methods. I know there are those out there that would like to think them all equal other than personal preference and it simply isn't true.

The point was they separate out the villas from the deluxe hotels and put them into their own category.

So how do they all break down category wise?

 

[Sammie]

I wish more people trading in at the 7 month window would consider WL 'lesser', would make it easier for me book relatively last minute trip at my home resort...something that I haven't been able to accomplish in years.

The lodge not the villas, and personally I don't think any DVC villa or Disney deluxe is lesser just different within the same category.

 

[keishashadow]

The lodge not the villas, and personally I don't think any DVC villa or Disney deluxe is lesser just different within the same category.

gotcha yes, it does seem that AK and WL are priced less than the other deluxe resorts when I price them out, but still pricey none-the-less; makes you appreciate DVC.

 

[Dean]

So how do they all break down category wise?

I don't have the actual info of how each rates WDW currently, I know I have in the past. My point was there were ways to rate them objectively. Generally AAA rates all WDW DVC options as 3 diamond except for BLT. Of the resorts that Disney qualifies as deluxe, generally all are 4 diamond except for AKL and WL which are 3. In the past the unofficial guide has given each an individual score based on a 0-100 scale, it's been a while since I looked and I seem to recall they've changed their system. Here is a checklist of how Forbes (formerly Mobile) rates hotels HERE. I realize that many of the things looked at are inherently absent in timeshares but there are still differences. In the past when we've had such discussions people wanted to ignore some items in favor of the ones they liked and discounting the ones not important to them. For example, some discounted conference facilities or business centers or wanted to quibble that BWV restaurants weren't part of the resort. I'd suggest you look at each item in detail when you have a chance.

 

[Dean]

If one goes back to the old days of DVC when all deluxe Disney hotels were open to booking using DVC points except BWI, DVC and Disney stratified them in the following way.

GF
YC/BC/CR tower/Poly
CR wings/WL/FW homes (before AKV)
Moderates

And they price them from a points standpoint accordingly.

 

[Sammie]

gotcha yes, it does seem that AK and WL are priced less than the other deluxe resorts when I price them out, but still pricey none-the-less; makes you appreciate DVC.

Yes within the deluxe resort category there are certainly variances, such WL has two full service restaurants and Grand Floridian has four. Does not mean that WL is not deluxe, just different offerings within the category and the price reflects those differences.

 

[wdrl]

Generally AAA rates all WDW DVC options as 3 diamond except for BLT. Of the resorts that Disney qualifies as deluxe, generally all are 4 diamond except for AKL and WL which are 3.

I think AKV has been upgraded to a four diamond rating for 2012 (see http://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-program/owning-dvc/1845-aaa-four-diamond-award-winners-for-2012).

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I think AKV has been upgraded to a four diamond rating for 2012 (see http://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-program/owning-dvc/1845-aaa-four-diamond-award-winners-for-2012).

Wow. It's funny how Disney turned around an under book facility and made it a AAAA resort!! Wish they could work that magic with housekeeping!! Thanks for the info.

 

[Dean]

I think AKV has been upgraded to a four diamond rating for 2012 (see http://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-program/owning-dvc/1845-aaa-four-diamond-award-winners-for-2012).

Thanks, so that would put WL as the only AAA rated 3 diamond Disney deluxe hotel.

I simply mentioned those options as possible measuring sticks because I know they all have objective components. There are others that have ratings, priceline is another that comes to mind and is easily accessible. Other guidebooks and systems likely have rating systems as well. But the bottom line is there are objective ways to compare. However, from a personal use standpoint, it doesn't matter, that's where personal preference comes in.

 

[kdzgon]

By Disney standards, all DVC are Deluxe Villas, however some have it in their mind, that SSR or OKW are lesser as is WL and AKL, just because of the different room types and cost.

If Disney felt this was true they would have a different listing for those resorts.

Within CR, the Poly, WL, GF and Contemporary are all deluxe hotels, yet there are clearly "levels" -clearly the general public agrees, or there would be no price differential(s). It is the same with DVC. Call it merely perception or call it the effective workings of the market; either way the reality is Disney could/would not get the higher prices for certain properties without it.

The lodge not the villas, and personally I don't think any DVC villa or Disney deluxe is lesser just different within the same category.

(emphasis mine)

But that's the point - it is [some people's] personal opinion only - it is not the overall market reality.

 

[kdzgon]

Thanks, so that would put WL as the only AAA rated 3 diamond Disney deluxe hotel.

I simply mentioned those options as possible measuring sticks because I know they all have objective components. There are others that have ratings, priceline is another that comes to mind and is easily accessible. Other guidebooks and systems likely have rating systems as well. But the bottom line is there are objective ways to compare. However, from a personal use standpoint, it doesn't matter, that's where personal preference comes in.

While personal preference can affect a decision, it does not occur in a vacuum. For instance, I think SSR is a nice enough resort, but not at the point price - it simply doesn't offer enough over OKW or AKV value or BW std to warrant the extra points. From my perspective, in my CR days I would have liked to stay at the GF but the premium just wasn't worth it vs the Poly. In either case, had the cost been equal my preference might lead me to a different choice, yet clearly there are others that felt just the opposite (as I did when paying the premium for the Poly over a CR wing or WL). The objective ratings create the floor but perception helps tweak the price and perceived "level".

 

[Dean]

While personal preference can affect a decision, it does not occur in a vacuum. For instance, I think SSR is a nice enough resort, but not at the point price - it simply doesn't offer enough over OKW or AKV value or BW std to warrant the extra points. From my perspective, in my CR days I would have liked to stay at the GF but the premium just wasn't worth it vs the Poly. In either case, had the cost been equal my preference might lead me to a different choice, yet clearly there are others that felt just the opposite (as I did when paying the premium for the Poly over a CR wing or WL). The objective ratings create the floor but perception helps tweak the price and perceived "level".

Agreed. Price is often a component of personal choices and preferences. There are also issues inherent to timeshares that are negative to such ratings, including no turn down, no housekeeping, no room service (for most), etc. And there are often positives for timeshares in areas that don't show up. Location, activities, exchange options, etc. There are review/ratings for timeshare but they are all subjective. Those of Timesharing today are the best because they have a formatted rating system and they attempt to prevent (and require a disclaimer) owners from rating their own resort. Those of TUG are less stringent and it's clear that owners rate their own resort, and system, far higher than others do. Thus the ratings are skewed upward for smaller resorts and where there are few exchanges in, often dramatically so.

 

[DreamChasers]

Getting back to the original point of this thread, I would for one welcome a DVC resort at art of animation, provided the number of points required to stay there was reflected in the fact that it is a value resort. I agree with previous posters that it would not be fair to sell points at a fraction of the other current offerings and allow them to book at the seven month mark. However, if Disney were to sell the points at the same price point as say AKV and make the points required to stay there about half of AKV then it would be a great addition. It would allow DVC members a chance to extend their stays over a much longer period of time, stay on site even if they are short on points and it make more affordable to allow friends and family to use your DVC membership.

 

[Dean]

Getting back to the original point of this thread, I would for one welcome a DVC resort at art of animation, provided the number of points required to stay there was reflected in the fact that it is a value resort. I agree with previous posters that it would not be fair to sell points at a fraction of the other current offerings and allow them to book at the seven month mark. However, if Disney were to sell the points at the same price point as say AKV and make the points required to stay there about half of AKV then it would be a great addition. It would allow DVC members a chance to extend their stays over a much longer period of time, stay on site even if they are short on points and it make more affordable to allow friends and family to use your DVC membership.

I think they could make it easily workable at that location but would assume points around the same as SSR and more than OKW.

 

[sweetdana]

While personal preference can affect a decision, it does not occur in a vacuum. For instance, I think SSR is a nice enough resort, but not at the point price - it simply doesn't offer enough over OKW or AKV value or BW std to warrant the extra points. From my perspective, in my CR days I would have liked to stay at the GF but the premium just wasn't worth it vs the Poly. In either case, had the cost been equal my preference might lead me to a different choice, yet clearly there are others that felt just the opposite (as I did when paying the premium for the Poly over a CR wing or WL). The objective ratings create the floor but perception helps tweak the price and perceived "level".

It is an opinion too.. I have and will again pick SSR over OKW, AKV, and BWV even more points per night. I bet I am not alone. Next to BC it is my fav resort. Even if it were more points than BLT or WL I'd pick SSR 95% of the time.

 

[DreamChasers]

I think they could make it easily workable at that location but would assume points around the same as SSR and more than OKW.

Are you saying price per point or number of points for a Villa? I would agree that Disney would need to sell the points for a little over $100 per point, but they would have to set the point scale low. I think initially some people may opt to stay at Art of Animation if the points required for a stay was on par with Saratoga Springs, but once the novelty wore off everyone, even Art of Animation owners would book somewhere else to get the better rooms and locations. Villas at Art of Animation would become a resort of last choice.

 

[CarolMN]

Are you saying price per point or number of points for a Villa? I would agree that Disney would need to sell the points for a little over $100 per point, but they would have to set the point scale low. ......(snip)......

Respectfully, why would Disney choose to do this? By setting the point requirements low, the number they can sell is lowered as well and therefore, so is their profit.

A rational business would not choose this project over one that returns more for the investment - like the DVC resorts planned for the GF and rumored for the Poly. DVC isn't about making WDW lodging affordable, it's about making money for the company. IMO, an AoA DVC is a long way from the top of DVC's "to do" list . YMMV

 

[Dean]

Are you saying price per point or number of points for a Villa? I would agree that Disney would need to sell the points for a little over $100 per point, but they would have to set the point scale low. I think initially some people may opt to stay at Art of Animation if the points required for a stay was on par with Saratoga Springs, but once the novelty wore off everyone, even Art of Animation owners would book somewhere else to get the better rooms and locations. Villas at Art of Animation would become a resort of last choice.

Points per Villa, I do not believe they will do a scaled down resort for less points per night. Marriott tried this and it failed. They did smaller, less upscale rooms for a cheaper price (not cheap enough) and the program failed miserably. It's like when someone brings up the 1 BR sleep 6 issue and they assume it'll be little more points per villa per night than the current 1 BR and in reality it would be about 60-70% of the way toward the 2 BR.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Getting back to the original point of this thread, I would for one welcome a DVC resort at art of animation, provided the number of points required to stay there was reflected in the fact that it is a value resort. I agree with previous posters that it would not be fair to sell points at a fraction of the other current offerings and allow them to book at the seven month mark. However, if Disney were to sell the points at the same price point as say AKV and make the points required to stay there about half of AKV then it would be a great addition. It would allow DVC members a chance to extend their stays over a much longer period of time, stay on site even if they are short on points and it make more affordable to allow friends and family to use your DVC membership.

I think they could make it easily workable at that location but would assume points around the same as SSR and more than OKW.

Bingo.