How far and wide would you want DVC to expand?

[com_op_2000]

I would vote to have one on CC.
DCL to DVC-CC for a couple of days to DCL
Now that would be a vacation.

 

[ABE4DISNEY]

Now that DVC and ABD will be under the same VP, I would love to see ABD trips become available to DVC members at a reasonable number of points (unlike the cruises).

I like this idea!!

 

[Dean]

I've always wished Disney would build a Williamsburg DVC. I know it's an overbuilt timeshare area, but I think it would be a good fit and an expanded Adventures by Disney presence would work well with day trips to DC.

Really wished we could have had Disney's America in Virginia, but politics put an end to that option.

As you note, Williamsburg is over built with timeshares. Second only to Orlando and Branson and maybe LV in the supply vs demand. Unless Disney can work out an alliance with the Foundation there to be an integral part of the historical park and be within walking distance, I don't see it happening. Plus, Williamsburg is VERY seasonal. A resort there would have FAR less overall demand than even SSR or OKW and thus the affect on the 7 month window would be dramatic.

Now that DVC and ABD will be under the same VP, I would love to see ABD trips become available to DVC members at a reasonable number of points (unlike the cruises).

I wouldn't hold my breath. I am not aware of a cash type option in any system that has a good exchange value. DVC still has to pay cash for those other type options and they have to generate dollars to do so. The only way around this would be a barter system and I do not see DVD or ABD being able to work a way to use the DVC points directly like exchanging with BVTC or RCI.

 

[DougEMG]

On OP's "far and wide" question, I think DVC has very limited ability to expand geographically.

Forget the economics of building and selling a timeshare resort in this economic environment -- DVC's problems are much more fundamental than that. DVC's BIG problem is one of differentiation -- or in this case, the inability to differentiate.

If you can't offer something unique, the competition becomes one based on price, and DVC will lose that fight every time to much larger systems with lower cost structures.

DVC works best where DVC properties offer a unique advantage over competitive products. At WDW, there is no question that DVC has a clear advantage -- they are ONsite, and they are Disney resorts. Those two factors carry an enormous variety of advantages which make DVC worth its price for many.

IMHO, DVC still works some at Disneyland in California. Certainly not as well as WDW, but at least it is Disney and is as onsite as you can get at Disneyland. I think it's weak -- particularly when compared to the competition in the timeshare field -- but that's just my opinion.

At the overseas Disney theme parks, I think DVC could enjoy a marketable advantage...with the caveat that I am not familiar with the laws in those countries regarding timeshares (which could make a DVC offering impossible). Again, the nexus is a Disney theme park.

Without the Disney theme park, I just don't see any rationale for a Disney timeshare.

To me, VB, HHI, and Aulani -- although each lovely resorts in their own way -- really don't belong because there is no there there. Great resorts, but what's the point of a Disney resort? Especially when you can buy competitive products for $1 on eBay, rather than tens of thousands of dollars for DVC!

 

[Doug7856]

As you note, Williamsburg is over built with timeshares. Second only to Orlando and Branson and maybe LV in the supply vs demand. Unless Disney can work out an alliance with the Foundation there to be an integral part of the historical park and be within walking distance, I don't see it happening. Plus, Williamsburg is VERY seasonal. A resort there would have FAR less overall demand than even SSR or OKW and thus the affect on the 7 month window would be dramatic.

The idea of an alliance with the Foundation would be a great option. They could use some of the insight Disney has on visitor flow and an Imagineer impact on the story of Williamsburg could be a game changer for Historic Williamsburg.

Busch Gardens management has been working on expanding their season. The regular season runs from March through October now. They have also tapped into the Christmas travel market with openings from Thanksgiving through New Years -- often maxing out the park's seasonal capacity.

High season would probably be prohibitively expensive though to balance out the demand from off season. A possible solution -- an indoor water park -- encroaches on Great Wolf Lodge's market.

Overall this is highly unlikely as Disney's Location Based Entertainment strategy appears dead to me.

 

[Dean]

The idea of an alliance with the Foundation would be a great option. They could use some of the insight Disney has on visitor flow and an Imagineer impact on the story of Williamsburg could be a game changer for Historic Williamsburg.

Busch Gardens management has been working on expanding their season. The regular season runs from March through October now. They have also tapped into the Christmas travel market with openings from Thanksgiving through New Years -- often maxing out the park's seasonal capacity.

High season would probably be prohibitively expensive though to balance out the demand from off season. A possible solution -- an indoor water park -- encroaches on Great Wolf Lodge's market.

Overall this is highly unlikely as Disney's Location Based Entertainment strategy appears dead to me.

Williamsburg is more seasonal than even HH. The peak season is more June through August with April, May, Sept and Oct being of modest demand. HH might be a good reference point for the points schedule.

 

[csharpwv]

I REALLY wish they had built the resort at the National Harbor in MD. I think Disney made a huge mistake by NOT building that resort.

With the DC Metro area being a top family vacation destination, I think they could have not only made great sales there, I think what they could have brought to the region would have been high quality, and very desirable!

I have said it 10 dozen times before - an indoor water park on that site would have been a HUGE draw for families who know and trust the Disney name.

Can you imagine the themes they could have developed for the resort? It would have been incredible!

An onsite theater, indoor water park, arcade area, and innovative day excursions would have made the resort the place for families!

I think if they had developed a 200 room hotel/timeshare operation, they would have been able to drive sales, profits, and guest experience from the drivers seat!

I REALLY wish they would have built!

I don't want to see DVC in tourist trap destinations - I just think it wouldn't be good for the brand, or for guests.

Do I think they could have a FEW more locations - yes!

Another location at Disneyland (perhaps a Disneyland Hotel Tower) would be huge!

A winter resort destination that would have a huge snow play area.

A northeast beach/shore destination.

A follow through on what was to be DVC in NYC.

I think those are about the only 4 that would prove to be 'BIG' for DVC.

As for indoor water parks - they could blow Great Wolf out of the water! HAHA

 

[Dean]

I REALLY wish they had built the resort at the National Harbor in MD. I think Disney made a huge mistake by NOT building that resort.

With the DC Metro area being a top family vacation destination, I think they could have not only made great sales there, I think what they could have brought to the region would have been high quality, and very desirable!

I have said it 10 dozen times before - an indoor water park on that site would have been a HUGE draw for families who know and trust the Disney name.

Can you imagine the themes they could have developed for the resort? It would have been incredible!

An onsite theater, indoor water park, arcade area, and innovative day excursions would have made the resort the place for families!

I think if they had developed a 200 room hotel/timeshare operation, they would have been able to drive sales, profits, and guest experience from the drivers seat!

I REALLY wish they would have built!

I don't want to see DVC in tourist trap destinations - I just think it wouldn't be good for the brand, or for guests.

Do I think they could have a FEW more locations - yes!

Another location at Disneyland (perhaps a Disneyland Hotel Tower) would be huge!

A winter resort destination that would have a huge snow play area.

A northeast beach/shore destination.

A follow through on what was to be DVC in NYC.

I think those are about the only 4 that would prove to be 'BIG' for DVC.

As for indoor water parks - they could blow Great Wolf out of the water! HAHA

It's very difficult to impossible to do an indoor waterpark in an area with very high land costs. For Williamsburg, this means it has to be further out. National harbor was never set for DVC based on the info available though I think there's a chance it could have happened had the project gone forward.

 

[disneynutz]

Disney knows their business and if there was money to be made, they would build it. Several sites have been purchased/considered as Disney proprieties and they have decided not to move forward on the projects. They have their reasons.

Bill

 

[Dean]

Disney knows their business and if there was money to be made, they would build it. Several sites have been purchased/considered as Disney proprieties and they have decided not to move forward on the projects. They have their reasons.

Bill

I'm not sure I'd agree when it comes to off site options. I believe they opened VB & HH and expected sales to simply drop in their lap, they didn't. The same can be said to a lessor degree for Aulani. Disney is simply not prepared or equipped to compete in the timeshare sales game where competition is necessary. This could change and I think we've seen glimmers that it is changing but they have miles to go before they can compete, IMO.

 

[disneynutz]

I'm not sure I'd agree when it comes to off site options. I believe they opened VB & HH and expected sales to simply drop in their lap, they didn't. The same can be said to a lessor degree for Aulani. Disney is simply not prepared or equipped to compete in the timeshare sales game where competition is necessary. This could change and I think we've seen glimmers that it is changing but they have miles to go before they can compete, IMO.

That's my point, the off-site locations haven't been the successes that they expected so they haven't built anything other than Aulani.

Aulani is primarily marketed in Japan and due to their economic issues sales have been slower than expected.

Bill

 

[Greysword]

Periodically, we see threads that ask this question. However, we never really see a thread that asks the important version of this question: What locations would you be willing to purchase points and how many would you buy (equivalency)?


Now as for,

ITA. I also wish they would limit rentals to a tighter window, so real owners would have the first shot at being able to stay at the resorts we paid for!

I was going to answer this, but Jim nailed it!

Let me start out by saying that I have never rented a single reservation -- DVC or otherwise -- so I have no dog in this fight.

The biggest problem with this idea is that the people making reservations to rent ARE real owners -- who are using their personal points for a permissible purpose under the legal structures of DVC. If they get a reservation that any other DVC owner is eligible to get, they succeed not because they are renting, but because they did a better job of planning and executing than people who don't get reservations.

Also, as Dean pointed out, to deny them that ability would probably be a violation of the legal rights of all owners.

Second, what you are basically saying is that you object to people using their points in a permissible way because you object to the purpose of the reservation (renting for profit...or at least for money). The underlying assumption is that the guests staying in the villa are not DVC owners.

But how does that differ from reserving a villa for a family member who is not a DVC owner? Either renting or gifting a reservation to a family member takes a unit out of inventory. Renting is permitted by the POS, as is making a reservation for anyone without regard to whether they are owners or not. What's the difference? It's really just someone's personal perspective.

The strategy for getting the ressies you want is a) learn the system, b) plan ahead, and c) do whatever you need to do to execute your plans. The playing field is the same for everyone.

No limiting rentals, as there is no way to distinguish between a rental and non-rental, plus, it would significantly limit the value of the ownership.

Besides, I believe Disney Resorts would do that if they could.

 

[bwvBound]

I wouldn't mind seeing DVC at Disneyland Paris or Tokyo Disneyland, or even Hong Kong Disneyland.

Agreed! I'd be quick to use the one in Tokyo and possibly HK.

 

[zavandor]

Add me to the list of people interested in a DVC near other Disney theme parks around the world. Tokyo being my n°1 favourite.

 

[Dean]

That's my point, the off-site locations haven't been the successes that they expected so they haven't built anything other than Aulani.

Aulani is primarily marketed in Japan and due to their economic issues sales have been slower than expected.

Bill

Part of my point is that the limitations are self imposed due to their lack of effort and their approach, not the possibilities. I know that many here like them being so lightweight in the sales area. Another part of my point is that the membership has suffered due to this approach. It is my opinion that there are many things that DVD could do to increase sales and still be professional and appropriate.

Periodically, we see threads that ask this question. However, we never really see a thread that asks the important version of this question: What locations would you be willing to purchase points and how many would you buy (equivalency)?

I agree in one sense assuming they keep the same approach. In general timeshares are sold, not bought. I believe that DVC can sell any good resort in a good location but they'll have to change their approach to do so for such as we're discussing. Likely their best bets are Southern beaches (esp FL), Caribbean and HI (esp Maui) looking at non park locations. However, they've got to supply a reasonable location rather than trying to create something out of nothing like the other off property locations (HI semi excluded).

 

[Deb & Bill]

Agreed! I'd be quick to use the one in Tokyo and possibly HK.

Annually? Lots of those places need members to buy in there and stay there annually. Otherwise, they are all competing for WDW villas at seven months out.

 

[bwvBound]

Annually? Lots of those places need members to buy in there and stay there annually. Otherwise, they are all competing for WDW villas at seven months out.

No, I wouldn't visit annually and I wouldn't be buying there either. I'd use the resort, but probably about as often as I use Aulani ... which is likely more often than I use my home resort.

A big selling feature of DVC is the emphasis on the final word, "Club." My perspective is that I, effectively, own points in the network of Disney Vacation Club properties. Sometimes I'll use my home resort (3 reservations in almost 9 years time); sometimes I'll use the resort closest to my home (3 reservations in the past 12 months); sometimes I'll visit WDW (almost annually but not always using DVC points); etc.

If there were a DVC at Tokyo with reasonable point chart, I'd likely split my Aulani visits between Tokyo and Aulani, thus reducing my usage of the Aulani property.

 

[Deb & Bill]

No, I wouldn't visit annually and I wouldn't be buying there either. I'd use the resort, but probably about as often as I use Aulani ... which is likely more often than I use my home resort.

A big selling feature of DVC is the emphasis on the final word, "Club." My perspective is that I, effectively, own points in the network of Disney Vacation Club properties. Sometimes I'll use my home resort (3 reservations in almost 9 years time); sometimes I'll use the resort closest to my home (3 reservations in the past 12 months); sometimes I'll visit WDW (almost annually but not always using DVC points); etc.

If there were a DVC at Tokyo with reasonable point chart, I'd likely split my Aulani visits between Tokyo and Aulani, thus reducing my usage of the Aulani property.

You can use the term "club" anyway you like. But you don't own points in a network. You own points at a specific resort. Should your home resort cease to exist in the DVC network, you won't be staying anywhere at DVC.

But with the main focus on WDW, and members buying outside of WDW with plans to use at WDW, it just makes it tougher at seven months.

Remember all the fuss about those SSR owner? Not planning to stay at SSR? That's just what you get. But if you want to stay at WDW and you own at SSR, you still are at WDW. If you own offsite and can't get any WDW resort, you won't be staying at WDW.

 

[bwvBound]

You can use the term "club" anyway you like. But you don't own points in a network. You own points at a specific resort. Should your home resort cease to exist in the DVC network, you won't be staying anywhere at DVC.

I'm only replying, above and now, from my own perspective as an existing Club member. I'm not trying to address the possible risks of buyers at future properties. As such, I feel my current points are pretty secure in the network. I don't see it worth worrying about the remote possibility of their losing DVC network status.

But with the main focus on WDW, and members buying outside of WDW with plans to use at WDW, it just makes it tougher at seven months.

Agreed, WDW has been the historic focus for the largely East Coast DVC owner base. However, participation here on this forum seems to show there is a growing base of owners from west of the Mississippi. I'm inclined to believe that these ownsers would travel CA, HI and Pacific Rim as well as WDW if there were DVC destinations.

Remember all the fuss about those SSR owner? Not planning to stay at SSR? That's just what you get. But if you want to stay at WDW and you own at SSR, you still are at WDW. If you own offsite and can't get any WDW resort, you won't be staying at WDW.

Yep, I remember. I'm an SSR owner from 2004 and I rarely stay at my home resort. I am visiting WDW less frequently now than before thanks to changes in IBM's conference focus and new options at CA and HI.

 

[Dean]

No, I wouldn't visit annually and I wouldn't be buying there either. I'd use the resort, but probably about as often as I use Aulani ... which is likely more often than I use my home resort.

A big selling feature of DVC is the emphasis on the final word, "Club." My perspective is that I, effectively, own points in the network of Disney Vacation Club properties. Sometimes I'll use my home resort (3 reservations in almost 9 years time); sometimes I'll use the resort closest to my home (3 reservations in the past 12 months); sometimes I'll visit WDW (almost annually but not always using DVC points); etc.

If there were a DVC at Tokyo with reasonable point chart, I'd likely split my Aulani visits between Tokyo and Aulani, thus reducing my usage of the Aulani property.

DVD has to be able to sell a new resort, it has to stand on it's own merit (from a sales standpoint) to be successful. With DVC's current approach, that means it has to have a hook that will draw current members AND nonmembers in to buy there. Either that OR DVD has to change their sales approach. HH & VB are very good examples of such a failed approach. Very nice resorts in second tier locations (IMO, I know some disagree) which did not sell. For VB to the point where they cut back the planned size and sold off the additional land. When people say they'd love to visit a location occasionally but not own there, this is not an endorsement for DVD to build at the location in question, people have to be willing to own there. Even then, they have to sell it and without the parks as a major supply of potential buyers, that's tough. Even HI is lagging sales even with their more aggressive approach in advertising.

One thing they could do would be to create a new system starting with say GF. One that had no home resort priority. That way it doesn't matter where you buy and DVD can sell Branson and Williamsburg just like they're GF. They could also create a crossover system. They could tie access to developer qualified status or they could charge a fee to have access or both. This approach also allows for smaller projects since you can average dues over the entire trust.