Incentives Thread

[Tatebeck]

I found the article that breaks down the summer 2024 Riviera incentive but am having trouble figuring out how it gets down to $158 pp? The article mentions getting down to 178 pp and then if you apply $20 for mb you get to 158. Just not seeing how there.

300 x 225 =67,500
-3825 $17 discount
-8000 WH
-6000 MB
=$49675 165.58 pp

What am I missing?


https://dvcnews.com/dvc-program-men...-incentives-largely-unchanged-for-summer-2024

It had a 1,000 Disney Visa Credit as well, and the 300 pts x $17 off is a $5,100 credit, not $3,825. You multiplied by the price, not the number of points getting the discount. I still have the offer page so I'll attach it.

300 x 225 = 67,500
-5100 $17 Discount
-8,000 WH
-1,000 VISA
-6,000 MB
=$47,400 / 300 pts = 158/pt

 

[Adopted By Disney]

It had a 1,000 Disney Visa Credit as well, and the 300 pts x $17 off is a $5,100 credit, not $3,825. You multiplied by the price, not the number of points getting the discount. I still have the offer page so I'll attach it.

300 x 225 = 67,500
-5100 $17 Discount
-8,000 WH
-1,000 VISA
-6,000 MB
=$47,400 / 300 pts = 158/pt

Awesome. Thank you! Now this is the type of deal we need to start seeing again

 

[Sandisw]

If the minimum buy in for new owners is 100 points, wouldn't it make sense that 100 points should be all that's needed for direct perks?

The reduction to 100 point minumum happened when VDH went on sale so I think it was tied to that since DL may not have as many guests who do the longer trips like at WDW.

But, prior to that, the minimum was 150 for buy in and perks, so I can see why they didn't change it. When I first bought direct, minimum buy in was 160 and when OKW went on sale, it was 230.

Granted, back then, everyone was eligible for memership extras, but at least the 100 minimum to get into DVC allows someone who might not be able to do the 150 it was before they changed it.

 

[Chili327]

The reduction to 100 point minimum happened when VDH went on sale so I think it was tied to that since DL may not have as many guests who do the longer trips like at WDW.

But, prior to that, the minimum was 150 for buy in and perks, so I can see why they didn't change it. When I first bought direct, minimum buy in was 160 and when OKW went on sale, it was 230.

Granted, back then, everyone was eligible for membership extras, but at least the 100 minimum to get into DVC allows someone who might not be able to do the 150 it was before they changed it.

A little off topic, but would a lower point threshold hurt them in any way? I feel like if the perks were available at 50 (or 100), a lot more people would go direct, over resale.
Incentives too, wouldn't they help sell more direct contracts, over resale?

 

[Sandisw]

A little off topic, but would a lower point threshold hurt them in any way? I feel like if the perks were available at 50 (or 100), a lot more people would go direct, over resale.

They have to pay for perks that they offer so IMO, the lower the threshold is, the fewer perks we would get.

Plus, if you make it lower, then you have people doing what they did when they changed it in 2016.

They bought resale and just added on a small contract.

So, to me, it would defeat the purpose of having it to begin with.

 

[Tatebeck]

A little off topic, but would a lower point threshold hurt them in any way? I feel like if the perks were available at 50 (or 100), a lot more people would go direct, over resale.

Most of the direct benefits are paid out of the marketing budget for DVC. So if the perks were available for less points (making more members eligible), then DVC would be paying more for the "same" benefits offered, since they would have to pay more times. Or they would reduce benefits if they wanted to "spend" the same amount.

They would likely sell less points overall as well. They would sell more small contracts, but lose some of the larger ones. And they still have to do the same amount of work for each contract. So they would be doing more work for fewer, or maybe the same number of points sold if they were lucky.

This would IMO result in a price increase per point to offset this. That is usually their game, just like with ticket prices. If you increase the price of something by a percentage, but then lose some customers, as long as the percentage reduction in customers is less than the percentage of the increased price, then congratulations you are now making more money for less work!

Also for things like MM where it is limited, it would decrease the average member's chance to get into the event if there was a large swell in members eligible for extras

 

[Chili327]

They have to pay for perks that they offer so IMO, the lower the threshold is, the fewer perks we would get.

Plus, if you make it lower, then you have people doing what they did when they changed it in 2016.

They bought resale and just added on a small contract.

So, to me, it would defeat the purpose of having it to begin with.

Ahh, yea true, i would be one of them.

Most of the direct benefits are paid out of the marketing budget for DVC. So if the perks were available for less points (making more members eligible), then DVC would be paying more for the "same" benefits offered, since they would have to pay more times. Or they would reduce benefits if they wanted to spend the same amount.

They would likely sell less points overall as well. They would sell more small contracts, but lose some of the larger ones. And they still have to do the same amount of work for each contract. So they would be doing more work for less, or maybe the same number sold if they were lucky.

This would IMO result in a price increase per point to offset this. That is usually their game, just like with ticket prices. If you increase the price of something by a percentage, but then lose some customers, as long as the percentage reduction in customers is less than the percentage of the increased price, then congratulations you are now making more money for less work!

Also for things like MM where it is limited, it would decrease the average member's chance to get into the event if there was a large swell in members eligible for extras

Makes sense, I was only thinking about direct sales, not the repercussions of having many more people qualified, but without paying as much into it.