Incentivizing direct purchase over resale

[tx911]

Clearly it's in DVC's best interest to incentivize direct purchase over resale. As of now, they have chosen to do this by providing some perks at the 150 direct point level as well as diminishing the value of resale points via restricted resorts.

How do you think DVC should best encourage direct purchases going forward?

1. Continue with resale restrictions, further diminishing the value of resale points over time.
2. Decrease the delta between direct and resale buy-in cost via incentives.
3. Increase the benefits of having direct points (i.e. tiered perks based on number of direct points).

Option 1 hurts resale buyers and depresses the value of resale contracts, especially as more and more restricted resorts come on line.

Option 2 is a race to the bottom, as lowering the price of direct points will in turn lower the price of resale points.

Option 3 would seem to be the least injurious to the resale product, and I think would definitely encourage more direct point purchases. If they went this route I would be in favor of ending restrictions as they currently exist.

If I had to choose between option 1 and 3, I would rather see option 3 and have resale restrictions rescinded.

 

[VGCgroupie]

3 but also 2.

I think 2 could be viable via things like a free AP for a year for a purchase over a certain amount. Things like that. Not just $ incentives.

I think also making exchanges a better value makes direct points more valuable. I would sell resale for more direct if there was a better more cost effective way to trade into cruises, ABD or even other Disney hotels like Pixar Place or International Park resorts. As it stands now the value is so terrible they are inviting people to rent and book cash.

 

[tx911]

3 but also 2.

I think 2 could be viable via things like a free AP for a year for a purchase over a certain amount. Things like that. Not just $ incentives.

I think also making exchanges a better value makes direct points more valuable. I would sell resale for more direct if there was a better more cost effective way to trade into cruises, ABD or even other Disney hotels like Pixar Place or International Park resorts. As it stands now the value is so terrible they are inviting people to rent and book cash.

Good idea, making direct points more valuable for trips outside of the DvC resorts.

 

[Sandisw]

I am indifferent to all of this because DVD is a business and I can’t control those decisions.

The value in DVC, for me, is in the use of my points so I want the most flexibility to use them.

Resale value doesn’t matter to me at all.

Obviously it would be great to get more value out of exchanges and any extra benefits are always nice.

 

[tx911]

I am indifferent to all of this because DVD is a business and I can’t control those decisions.

The value in DVC, for me, is in the use of my points so I want the most flexibility to use them.

Resale value doesn’t matter to me at all.

Obviously it would be great to get more value out of exchanges and any extra benefits are always nice.

For sure, but I think it's in all of our best interest for the resale product to maintain as much value as possible.

 

[Sandisw]

For sure, but I think it's in all of our best interest for the resale product to maintain as much value as possible.

Yesh, I get that but the resale market and what happens is just not something I care about.

If it goes up, wonderful. If it tanks, oh well.

I know it’s not the mindset of others.

What I can say… I 100% expect DVD to make business decisions that make choosing direct a much better option than resale.

 

[Dis_Ohana5]

I think a strong resale market reinforces the value of the product overall. The ability to sell if needed contributed to our decision to buy direct after buying a resale contract. I personally would be leery of endorsing point based membership tiers. Once that genie is out of the bottle they will never stop finding new ways to nickel and dime members and eventually will turn DVC into a product we don't recognize and I'm happy with what I bough

 

[tx911]

I think a strong resale market reinforces the value of the product overall. The ability to sell if needed contributed to our decision to buy direct after buying a resale contract. I personally would be leery of endorsing point based membership tiers. Once that genie is out of the bottle they will never stop finding new ways to nickel and dime members and eventually will turn DVC into a product we don't recognize and I'm happy with what I bough

I agree the product is not bad now for both resale and direct owners. However, if you follow restrictions to their natural endpoint, the product starts to really suck for the purely resale owner.

I suspect over time that will naturally cause new buyers to gravitate towards direct, but it will markedly devalue the resale product.

 

[Genie+]

I think #1 will never happen. Something along the lines of #3 is possible.

Over time DVC has been acclimating us to the idea that resale is not the same product. That has been ever so slowly evolving. As they come up with new things they can lock more and more of them behind qualified points.

If you search back 4-7 years you can find dozens of resale purchase conversations where Poly an option someone was considering. Time and time again the common advice was to choose one of the other resorts because Poly was so ‘bookable’ at 7 months. Point here being DVC is a long term product. Things change. What we can do with our membership today does not necessarily mean it will keep working that way. The way to ensure booking Poly was to buy that as a home resort. My guess is it will become more obvious that direct points are the way to ensure access to everything. That’s how DVC will try to drive direct. The little stings here and there reminding us that the resale and direct points we own are not the same.

 

[PolyRob]

Clearly it's in DVC's best interest to incentivize direct purchase over resale. As of now, they have chosen to do this by providing some perks at the 150 direct point level as well as diminishing the value of resale points via restricted resorts.

How do you think DVC should best encourage direct purchases going forward?

1. Continue with resale restrictions, further diminishing the value of resale points over time.
2. Decrease the delta between direct and resale buy-in cost via incentives.
3. Increase the benefits of having direct points (i.e. tiered perks based on number of direct points).

Option 1 hurts resale buyers and depresses the value of resale contracts, especially as more and more restricted resorts come on line.

Option 2 is a race to the bottom, as lowering the price of direct points will in turn lower the price of resale points.

Option 3 would seem to be the least injurious to the resale product, and I think would definitely encourage more direct point purchases. If they went this route I would be in favor of ending restrictions as they currently exist.

If I had to choose between option 1 and 3, I would rather see option 3 and have resale restrictions rescinded.

I’d lean toward your third idea of tiered benefits based on eligible points as the most effective approach.

Behavior over the past ten years has clearly followed the membership incentives. Before the 2016 restrictions, people rushed to get contracts in under the wire. Then from 2016 to 2021, many members added smaller direct contracts ranging from 25 - 100 points just to qualify for benefits. Now we are seeing a shift where people buy 150 points to unlock perks, but are perfectly happy filling out the rest of their DVC portfolio with resale.

That is why a tiered structure could really move the needle. If higher points totals unlocked better discounts or more compelling trade options, it might actually make people pause before defaulting to resale. As @VGCgroupie mentioned, the value of those trades matters too. The 2011 restriction did not land because it did not feel like a real loss. If you were buying points at a steep discount, missing out on something like a Disney cruise trade was not much of a deterrent. Most savvy members would just pocket the savings and book cruises cash.

Another angle is the resorts themselves. Restrictions alone are not enough, you need demand. Riviera, Villas at Disneyland Hotel, Cabins at Fort Wilderness, and even Lakeshore Lodge are all nice, but they do not really push the envelope, at least for me. They are not compelling enough to make me want more direct points when I am already happy at a monorail resort and can get resale points in similar resort areas or with similar theming. If Disney started building truly standout properties with next level theming (circa the Eisner days), multiple transportation options, and walkability to parks or even unique park entrances that would absolutely change the equation. That is the kind of offering that could drive direct sales on its own.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I’d lean toward your third idea of tiered benefits based on eligible points as the most effective approach.

Behavior over the past ten years has clearly followed the membership incentives. Before the 2016 restrictions, people rushed to get contracts in under the wire. Then from 2016 to 2021, many members added smaller direct contracts ranging from 25 - 100 points just to qualify for benefits. Now we are seeing a shift where people buy 150 points to unlock perks, but are perfectly happy filling out the rest of their DVC portfolio with resale.

That is why a tiered structure could really move the needle. If higher points totals unlocked better discounts or more compelling trade options, it might actually make people pause before defaulting to resale. As @VGCgroupie mentioned, the value of those trades matters too. The 2011 restriction did not land because it did not feel like a real loss. If you were buying points at a steep discount, missing out on something like a Disney cruise trade was not much of a deterrent. Most savvy members would just pocket the savings and book cruises cash.

Another angle is the resorts themselves. Restrictions alone are not enough, you need demand. Riviera, Villas at Disneyland Hotel, Cabins at Fort Wilderness, and even Lakeshore Lodge are all nice, but they do not really push the envelope, at least for me. They are not compelling enough to make me want more direct points when I am already happy at a monorail resort and can get resale points in similar resort areas or with similar theming. If Disney started building truly standout properties with next level theming (circa the Eisner days), multiple transportation options, and walkability to parks or even unique park entrances that would absolutely change the equation. That is the kind of offering that could drive direct sales on its own.

100% agree with the resorts aspect. They used to build places like Grand Californian, Animal Kingdom Lodge. Truly standout resorts. I say resorts with emphasis. New ones they tend to feel like hotels. Poly really shows this stark difference in old vs new building.

 

[Genie+]

The value of resale is the room.

What drives resale values at WDW? Demand to stay onsite. Plus the resort, its location, dues, point charts, etc. How much would people pay to stay in which room - deduct the dues cost and what ever is left is the resale value.

We started our DVC journey not caring about direct. The room! That is really all we cared about. Resale delivered.

 

[pzw90]

I was just wondering about this earlier. With LSL launching next year, and will be 7-8 years since the last restrictions on resale (2019), will now be the time we see new ones implemented?