Incentivizing direct purchase over resale

[kilik64]

I directly asked 3 DVC reps about LSL two months ago. All said Disney had not released if there would be a DVC component. When I asked each if they hoped it did, one said no because they had too much inventory on the table already to sell, and the other two would only commit to they would see if it happened. It remains speculation until Disney announces. It reminds me of the talk about whether the Poly tower would be a new resort or added onto the current one. Most said new. It wasn’t. If you feel you have Disney figured out, play the stock market with your visions of the future and you can buy all the Mickey bars you want to eat each trip. Just let me know when the current Poly prices will bottom out so I can get a good deal.

You must have never heard tale of bay lake tower.

What tower? Is the response dvc reps would give.

The speculation on poly tower is completely different, but I'll have you know I was right on that too being in the same association from the get go.

 

[Brian Noble]

\begin{Westworld}
"It doesn't look like anything to me."
\end{Westworld}

 

[VGCgroupie]

You do know that they’re legally not allowed to tell you any information about a properties not for sale, right?

Also, my memory is that the majority of people thought that the poly tower would be part of the original association…. as it was the most logical choice.

Sure, nothing is a done deal until it’s finalized, but I don’t think that pointing that out in a very direct way is very constructive to the conversation.

Didnt they say BLT didnt exist when people could see it existing with their own eyes?

 

[VGCgroupie]

You must have never heard tale of bay lake tower.

What tower? Is the response dvc reps would give.

The speculation on poly tower is completely different, but I'll have you know I was right on that too being in the same association from the get go.

Responded above before I saw your post.

 

[D-Trick]

At some point, DVC will come out with automatic Purple card benefits (or maybe even more benefits at another tier) once you reach, for example, 300-400 direct points.

How does grandfathering play out in with this scenario? I find it very hard to believe that DVC would add a component that excludes DVC-Y owners with less than said 300-400 direct points.

 

[tx911]

Perhaps they could offer an either or situation.

Pay annually for perk X, or get it for free if you have this many direct points. I think it would require more than what MMB offers though.

 

[pzw90]

You must have never heard tale of bay lake tower.

What tower? Is the response dvc reps would give.

The speculation on poly tower is completely different, but I'll have you know I was right on that too being in the same association from the get go.

When I talked to a guide (phone call) around CCV being on sale last cycle, I mentioned waiting for LSL. He quickly pivoted to “we also have CFW on sale too if you’re interested”

 

[kilik64]

When I talked to a guide (phone call) around CCV being on sale last cycle, I mentioned waiting for LSL. He quickly pivoted to “we also have CFW on sale too if you’re interested”

Now not to completely derail this, but THAT is the real speculation, is CFW gonna get roped into LSL...?

 

[AstroBlasters]

Now not to completely derail this, but THAT is the real speculation, is CFW gonna get roped into LSL...?

Agreed.

 

[PolyRob]

How does grandfathering play out in with this scenario? I find it very hard to believe that DVC would add a component that excludes DVC-Y owners with less than said 300-400 direct points.

I imagine it would be anyone eligible for membership extras (including grandfathered members) get what we currently get. Then tiers could be placed on top of that with more benefits. This way no one loses anything, but people with more direct get more benefits.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I imagine it would be anyone eligible for membership extras (including grandfathered members) get what we currently get. Then tiers could be placed on top of that with more benefits. This way no one loses anything, but people with more direct get more benefits.

I can see a scenario where they add additional NEW perks for larger direct point holders.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Yeah. I kind of agree. MMB is probably worth the $100 that it costs. Barely. At today's direct prices, that's 1/2 of a point.

The point of adding perks is to encourage people to buy direct, and the point of potentially adding tiered perks is to get people to add-on.

IMO, those perks are going to have to be WAY better than the $100 MMB perks to get many people to add-on.

+ 1 to all of this. I’ll pay $100 for MMB, might even add on $5k worth of points if it came with priority lounge access and BOGO use points FOR LIFE OF THE CONTRACT— but there’s now way they will even do that, as the contracts are covered in disclaimers that they can pull or change perks at any time. Either the perks need to get so much better I’m willing to cover the extra dues (let alone buy-in costs!!) or they need to promise a certain baseline of perk. MMB + TBD is not going to have us putting down $5k of direct points, let alone $20k (having said that, I might be willing to go direct just for current MMB perks IF I was in the market to add on that number of points anyway….but that’s a hypothetical I can’t even seriously entertain right now).

 

[Brian Noble]

Now not to completely derail this, but THAT is the real speculation, is CFW gonna get roped into LSL...?

I was convinced it would be, but am less confident about that these days.

 

[juliebee]

I was convinced it would be, but am less confident about that these days.

What has changed your confidence in LSL joining CFW?

 

[Bearval]

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 don't think DVC should be having what essentially 2 levels of membership ( 3 if you include adding on membership magic beyond) when they were selling DVC in the past they stated you could easily resell your contract if your family out grew going to WDW every year.

 

[CraigInPA]

How does grandfathering play out in with this scenario? I find it very hard to believe that DVC would add a component that excludes DVC-Y owners with less than said 300-400 direct points.

In the 2010's, DVC told everyone who wasn't already a blue card member that the minimum direct points for blue card is now 150 (previously it was 100, and before that 25, and before that 0). I suspect they'll follow that same rationale for my mythical "purple card" level, but set the minimum at 250 or 300. If you are an existing blue card member, but with less than the purple level of direct points, you'll remain a blue card member. So, three tiers: white (not enough qualifying direct points), blue (at some point qualified), and purple (new level with higher direct point requirements).

 

[CraigInPA]

Also, my memory is that the majority of people thought that the poly tower would be part of the original association…. as it was the most logical choice.

DVC is restricted from making public statements regarding future resorts until the declaration is filed. Otherwise, one could treat those statements as forward looking, with significant issues for the company should they turn out not to be true.

When I cornered a top DVC executive at a Moonlight Magic event and asked whether the announced, but not yet built, PIT would be a new resort or whether it would be part of Poly, I was shocked when he said "Of course it will be part of Poly". When I posted his response on Disboards, the "pundits" said I must have be wrong because they were absolutely sure that it would be a new resort. Fast forward a couple of years and it's announced as part of Poly.

I remember when they were building BLT years earlier and were telling people it was a replacement for the garden wing of the Contemporary, even though we could see through the windows that there were full kitchens in the rooms! As soon as that declaration was filed, the Monorail recording suddenly had an advertisement of BLT as the newest DVC resort.

When they did VGF, they actually told people that it was a DVC building while they were building it. When it was mostly done, and the declaration filed, the Monorail ran an advertisement for it.

 

[Brian Noble]

Someone (maybe @WinterSolider?) pointed out that Disney never uses the phrase "at Fort Wilderness" when they talk about LSL, but often used "at Polynesian Village" when discussing the tower. Throw in the fact that LSL will have a completely separate entrance, and I think it will be marketed as distinct from the Fort.

You could still move the Cabins over by dropping the "Fort Wilderness" from their name for marketing purposes, but they legal documents all say "at Fort Wilderness" so I think that is unlikely.

I still think they should be combined, but I am not longer confident they will be.

 

[WinterSolider]

You do know that they’re legally not allowed to tell you any information about a properties not for sale, right?

Also, my memory is that the majority of people thought that the poly tower would be part of the original association…. as it was the most logical choice.

Sure, nothing is a done deal until it’s finalized, but I don’t think that pointing that out in a very direct way is very constructive to the conversation.

The Poly tower was explicitly described as an expansion of "Polynesian Villas and Bungalows" from day 1.

 

[AstroBlasters]

The Poly tower was explicitly described as an expansion of "Polynesian Villas and Bungalows" from day 1.

No arguments from me.