Harder to get a room?

[fishermouse]

And remember in that poll that Beca was nice enough to put up, BCV came out on top in popularity for everyone?

I'm sure the poll was very scientific and took into account all the variables. One example being that most SSR owners are new to DVC and have never heard of Dis Boards. Another being that most SSR owners, being more recent DVC members have not yet tried all the DVC resorts. It is only fair to say that of those responding to the poll the highest percentage prefer BWV.
Also IMHO most BWV owners jump at the chance to post negativly about SSR, without ever having stayed there.
My guess is, if you asked where do you own, SSR would have the lowest reponse.
There was a poll I read last week that asked SSR owners where they intend to stay the overwhelming majority picked SSR.. This poll was no more scientific than the above mentioned poll but did single out SSR owners.

 

[kimberh]

I just made my first ressie at VWL where I just became a owner, I don't even have all my documents yet. I called MS and obtained my member number. They had Studio', 1 bedroom for the first week in October and studio, 1&2 bedroom for the last week in October. I was shocked. I booked all I needed at one time. This was encouraging to me. It was even 4:45 when I made the call.

 

[Dean]

Dean, to your point, can they lower the points at any of the resorts or is that cast in granite? Certainly I do not think they can raise them - but lowering them?

I agree with Carol, they could lower the points and sell less total but I too doubt they will do so. I also don't expect two levels of points like at BWV. It's such a pity they didn't do more for SSR. I was hoping for individual bungalows or similar, under unit parking and a real family style and/or dress up restaurant. I also expected more from the pool they was produced though I know many disagree.

Brian, they did reduce the total points for BWV when the made the change to standard view. They could reduce it but not increase it without an actual vote of the membership.

 

[Dean]

That was my point about opinions. We are each entitled to our own. Many do feel the proximity to DD to be a plus - some apparently do not. Some do like the theming - some apparently do not.

The point of my last post was simply to point out that the increased difficulty in making reservations within 7 months has been discussed on this board long before SSR was even announced. The concern has been present for a number of years now and other resorts were blamed at that time. For now, some have shifted the blame to SSR owners for reserving at other resorts within 7 months. The complaint has been around a long time- only the culprit has changed within the same discussion.

Rob, I don't think it's been overlooked. I know I've mentioned VB, HH and newer owners at OKW a number of times in these type discussions as I feel these are other groups that bought to use points elsewhere than the rest. The issue, IMO, is simply the scope of the problem. The number of points at SSR overwhelms all the other 3 groups combined and is additive to the total. But to be clear, I'm not saying it's a problem per se, only pointing out that this is reality as I see it. Obviously we won't have full proof as to the scope of the problem for a few years but I think anyone who simply ignores the risks and likely affects are not being reasonable.

Tinky, I would disagree that this is a problem as old as DVC itself. It's a problem that truly started with VWL and BCV. That's not to say there weren't owners prior that bought X to stay at Y, just that it was not a real problem prior. After VWL, DVC made a big push to sell VB and HH at all costs including a $15 per points reduction and a significant number of guides pushing VB and HH to stay elsewhere.

 

[Sammie]

And remember in that poll that Beca was nice enough to put up, BCV came out on top in popularity for everyone?

Came out on top in popularity for those who participated in the poll; that clearly is not everyone.

 

[Slakk]

What I find funny is everyone keep throwing around the 40% number but since SSR is only about half sold that mean we Roon Stealing SSR types only make up 20% of the DVC pool...And since some of us SSR types actually LIKE our own resort the number will go down so I do not see the huge impact at this point.

 

[Dean]

“SSR would have to be seven times more appealing?” The math around here is absolutely scary sometimes.

It should be equally appealing. So owners at BCW, BWV and VWL want to try SSR as much as SSR owners would want to try the resort-based DVC properties.

That’s called balance: Then it doesn’t matter how many DVC resorts are built or how many rooms each resort may have. If there is equal appeal then, for example, I may forego my BWV points one year to try SSR.

The concern is that SSR may not be that kind of draw. No one, is arguing that it’s not a pretty resort, or blames you for wanting to stay there. It’s the equation that is fueling the concern: If a greater percentage of SSR owners want to stay at the smaller resort-based DVC properties then vice versa, then we have over demand at the smaller resorts.

Given it's large size, an equal demand would not be enough to alleviate the issue of discussion. It would have to be more so. Obviously 7 times was an exaggeration aimed at the large size.

Equal appeal is in the eye of the beholder.

Rob, specific to the discussion, equal appeal is a numbers game though it is based on the aggregate impression of all those that are attempting the reservations.

 

[PinkTink63]

As long as you plan in advance is correct......I just get disgruntled at the people that complain when they can't get in their home resort at the less than 7 month window. I believe this is no ones fault but their own.



The other part I tend not to agree with. By that token, with OKW being the first, and one of the largest, maybe they shouldn't have created the smaller resort villas to begin with. I think the argument could go that way also. :

This is exactly what I was thinking! If they started out with the large resort, why start building smaller ones?

Steph

 

[crisi]

“SSR would have to be seven times more appealing?” The math around here is absolutely scary sometimes.

It should be equally appealing. So owners at BCW, BWV and VWL want to try SSR as much as SSR owners would want to try the resort-based DVC properties.

Here is the math. Lets say SSR has 700 rooms and VWL has 100 (i.e. 7 times as many rooms, which isn't quite right, but which was postulated earlier in the thread). 10% of members who would stay the week of September 1st want to switch universally (resorts are equally appealling). That means 70 SSR owners want 10 rooms that free up when the 10 VWL owners switch.

It gets more complicated when you add resorts - but if you are assuming all resorts are equally appealling, the demand for rooms at the smaller resorts will always outstrip the demand compared to larger resorts.

Now lets say VWL is a pit of 100 rooms and SSR is a palace of 700 rooms. Only 5% of SSR members want VWL but 35% of VWL want SSR. Now you have 35 SSR members wanting to switch to VWL and 35 VWL members wanting to switch to SSR. SSR is seven times more popular.

When I made a rather complicated decision analysis spreadsheet on the whole thing, including larger resorts like OKW, I think I came to SSR needing to be about 4 times as popular as any other resort in the system in order for balance to be achieved. I had to make some assumptions on the interest in switching at other resorts. Although I don't find SSR to be appealing, I can believe that it is just as appealing to the population whole as any other resort. However, I find it unbelieveable that it will be popular enough to overcome the problem of its size.

And of course, the complete model would be impossible to create without data and would be very complicated - needing to take into account the popularity of the Epcot resorts over Food and Wine - which sort of throws the whole system out of whack for six weeks each year. And I've debated long and hard about BW actually being trated as two or even THREE resorts - SV rooms being almost worthy of being its own subresort.

 

[Dean]

What I find funny is everyone keep throwing around the 40% number but since SSR is only about half sold that mean we Roon Stealing SSR types only make up 20% of the DVC pool...And since some of us SSR types actually LIKE our own resort the number will go down so I do not see the huge impact at this point.

I'd estimate that SSR owners are currently at least 35-40% of the pool calling in at the 7 month window and likely to be 70-80% of that group once it's sold out. IMO, the scope of the issue is FAR larger than the percentage of points at SSR compared to the total. Note I did not say it's a problem, only that that is what I expect.

 

[twister]

This is all very interesting. Do you all, feel that dvc will attempt to correct the situation?

 

[Slakk]

I'd estimate that SSR owners are currently at least 35-40% of the pool calling in at the 7 month window and likely to be 70-80% of that group once it's sold out. IMO, the scope of the issue is FAR larger than the percentage of points at SSR compared to the total. Note I did not say it's a problem, only that that is what I expect.

I don't get why so many people assume SSR people want to stay elsewhere. But even IF they do at 7 months it is fair game. Oh well. But I doubt that out of 100 SSR people looking for reservation 70 want to be elsewhere - of course none of us can prove or disprove this unless DVC is willing to give some statistics.

 

[Sammie]

I don't get why so many people assume SSR people want to stay elsewhere. But even IF they do at 7 months it is fair game. Oh well. But I doubt that out of 100 SSR people looking for reservation 70 want to be elsewhere - of course none of us can prove or disprove this unless DVC is willing to give some statistics.

Exactly, which makes all this just conversation. The members represented on these forums are just a small percentage of the total membership.

 

[twister]

How come people are claiming the only place they can get a room is at SSR?

Some guy the other night said he even called to pay cash for a room, and the only place he could get in was SSR. Man that is wack, if people are making stuff up to mess with us.

 

[bom_noite]

Let me ask this question. Lets assume that 4 years from now SSR is sold out. And, lets assume that 50% of the folks at SSR want to trade out on any given week.

Now, for this week SSR is 50% empty and between outside Condo Transfers and public sales they get another 20% full. This leaves 30% un-occupied.

If this occurs - who does that financially impact? DVC or DVC Members who own at SSR?

 

[Dean]

This is all very interesting. Do you all, feel that dvc will attempt to correct the situation?

Not really much they can do at present other than build more destination resorts. And I don't think they can do enough of that to make a large dent in the issue. Their response should be that members can book their home resort during the 11-7 month window and that nothing else was guaranteed. That's what I'd say in their situation.

I don't get why so many people assume SSR people want to stay elsewhere. But even IF they do at 7 months it is fair game. Oh well. But I doubt that out of 100 SSR people looking for reservation 70 want to be elsewhere - of course none of us can prove or disprove this unless DVC is willing to give some statistics.

That's the point. It doesn't take 70% of the owners, only 70% of those in the 7 month pool. Plus even those that own at BCV, BWV and VWL who make an 11 month reservation then try for something else at the 7 month window, will keep what they have if they are not successful and those units will never become available at 7 months. And while I'd agree that specific numbers from DVC would answer these questions directly, I feel there is plenty of circumstantial evidence available now to justify the concerns and position that SSR has shifted the curve.

If this occurs - who does that financially impact? DVC or DVC Members who own at SSR?

The answer is simple, none or almost none. The resort is sold out and the owners pay the dues which will not change. The only direct financial impact for members is for the units in the breakage inventory. And since they generally only rent part of them, the question is whether they are at, above or below average in terms of percent rented or dollars. The other affect is on the number of points it would cost for cash equivalent options like DCL. If they rent more or for more $$$, the points are decreased somewhat and if they get less $$$, nothing has changed since they go up yearly anyway.

 

[PinkTink63]

Equal appeal is in the eye of the beholder. I have stayed at all 7 DVC resorts and can find something "appealing" about each one, but there are some I have no urgent need to return to. Fortunately, I purchased at the resorts I enjoy the most and most vacations are spent there. The resorts I enjoy the most may not be (and apparently are not) the resorts that YOU enjoy the most- thus what I find appealing may not appeal to you and vice - versa. That does not mean that either one of us is wrong- just that we have different tastes.

As the concerns raised here reach the level of hysteria, more and more members will make their home resort reservations at 11 months - some will be able to change at 7 months to another resort, some will not have that ability. As more and more complain to DVC about their inability to reserve at 7 months at non-home resorts, the decision could just be made to change the reservation priority. I can easily envision an 11/10 month priority and can see the frantic posts already if that were to happen. DVC can make that change without consulting the membership and that possibility is clearly spelled out in our documents.

Maybe the only mistake made by DVC was in building those small resorts.

Stay tuned!

Doc, I agree with you whole-heartedly! What people don't seem to get around here is the difference of opinion! The ones that hate SSR, because they say it has know "draw", just don't get it. Some people like the quiet and peacefulness of it and that it is close to DD. Then you have the people who love BWV for all the action and the parks, while others hate the scary clown! BCV people love SAB, but others don't care for the decor. Then you have some that adore VWL, while others find it quite dark, etc. I for one can find something appealing at all of them and hope to stay at all of them. After all, I don't think that every resort can be attached to a park.

Then we have some people here that feel it is a Disney conspiracy that DVC guides are actually telling potential owners that they are able to book other DVC resorts at 7 months! Isn't that part of thier job? And while I am sure that some point out certain resorts, I know for a fact, my guide did not! I bought DVC as a whole package with a home resort. That was part of the appeal of it. I like the flexibility of it! I like the idea of staying at different places while at WDW. Sometimes, I want to be where the action is and sometimes I want a little more relaxation! (IMO I love the scary clown slide!) My point being, what some people like about a resort, others absolutely hate! Some only want to stay at their home resort. If that is the case, they are going to have to plan ahead. If they can't get it at 8-10 out, then they only have their fellow owners to blame! If I wanted to stay at the same place every trip, I could have bought one of those off site Timeshares!

If the same people on here continue to have the same concerns about DVC and the new resorts, I really think they should let DVC know about them!

The Dis is a great source of information, both opinion and fact! I personally, love to hear what is on the minds of my fellow Disers!

Steph

 

[PinkTink63]

How come people are claiming the only place they can get a room is at SSR?

Some guy the other night said he even called to pay cash for a room, and the only place he could get in was SSR. Man that is wack, if people are making stuff up to mess with us.

I saw that too! I went on the Disney site to check for myself and came up with different results!

 

[crisi]

I don't get why so many people assume SSR people want to stay elsewhere. But even IF they do at 7 months it is fair game. Oh well. But I doubt that out of 100 SSR people looking for reservation 70 want to be elsewhere - of course none of us can prove or disprove this unless DVC is willing to give some statistics.

I don't, and I agree. The point I keep trying to make is that if all owners want to trade out evenly, balance is best acheived by having all the resorts be a similar size. But DVC doesn't seem interested in the balance the system has - and perhaps they don't need to be. From a business standpoint, its your initial purchase they are interested in securing.

There are doubtless many - and probably most - SSR owners who intend to stay primarily at SSR. The problem is that with so many SSR owners, the few who want to switch make a bigger impact than the few BCV owners who want to switch.

The other problem I see is that while I don't doubt that many SSR owners intend to stay primarily at SSR, many were sold based on being able to book other resorts. With BCV resales going for more than Disney is selling points for at SSR - and dues there higher, my guess is that BCV owners aren't intending to trade out often at all. That will lead to disappointment for some folks who think that they won't have problems booking BCVs (or BWV Standard View or VWL around the holidays or whatever). Now, they could get lucky and not have problems, but I think we are seeing the edges of how fast the Epcot area resorts will book for F&W this year - and it will get worse.

Professional landlords throw another monkey wrench into the works - by booking prime times and renting out the reservation. When they accept point transfers in and the transfer loses its original use year and home resort desigination, it makes the system easy to "jimmy" in favor of the folks running DVC as a business over those that just want to switch at seven months.

I don't see any of this as a problem with SSR owners, or with SSR as a resort. And if they had built 700 units at the Contemporary, I would still think the system was out of balance. And there is no reason to say the problem is with SSR - the argument could be made that with OKW as the first resort, and BWVs as the second, all resorts should have been scoped between those two - and that VWL and BCV are as much an abberation and part of the problem as SSR is.

(Oh and read the post more carefully, the example math is 700 SSR owners and 100 VWL owners, 10% both want to switch. 10% of 700 is 70, 10% of 100 is 10. I don't think that 70% of owners want to switch. The point is that 10% of 700 is a bigger number than 10% of 100).

 

[SoCalKDG]

The solution I came up with is doing small addons at resorts that I wish to stay at so I can bypass the 7 month window completely. Thus adding at Beach Club to go with my ownership at Boardwalk.

I'm hopeful that we get a Boardwalk sized DVC addition at the Contemporary giving us our first monorail resort. Then a small DVC at Disneyland for the occasional night I'd spend there and everything will be happy in SoCal land for socalkdg.