Incentivizing direct purchase over resale

[kilik64]

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

Same, I am to the point where I think that CFW is the only thing that will ever be a trust and they did it that way because of how the cabins are built and work.

But on the flip side, does DVC want an Aulani type product hanging out in WDW? (meaning a property that will basically never sell out?) So that's a huge incentive to throw LSL in the trust to basically help get those points gone at some point.

To add as well, I do wonder how DVC views the CFW performance so far, they had to have thought it would do better than it has? Money wise they probably dont care a ton, they still rent what they have well enough I'm sure, but the actual sales bit has gotta be way lower than even they projected?

 

[D-Trick]

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

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.

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).

Just curious... how many direct points do y'all own?

All members that are currently DVC-Y (from the 90s OGs to today's 150 minimums) expect that their purchase grants them the benefits for the life of their eligible contract(s). We see it all the time on these boards: disboarders making the hard decision and then ultimately paying the additional $$$ to get the Membership Extras and use at future resorts. It's an expensive accomplishment for a lot of people here, and so understandably it is one that they are very proud of. Creating a new tier doesn't move the goalposts-- it builds a whole new stadia entirely that they are now standing outside the gates of.

My mind draws toward those long tenured 1990s owners. They have been eligible for every benefit that DVC has offered since inception. Since the point charts on older properties are much lower, it's easy to say that smaller contracts (i.e. ~200 to 250 points) are enough to fulfill their annual vacation needs. Now a new tier requires them to buy more points after owning for 30 years? You would have to incentivize every property.

Instead of new benefits for members that own more direct points, DVC should instead work on increasing the benefits of direct point usage (e.g. needing direct points for MMB AP).

I see raising the minimum from 150 as the best answer, but not necessarily creating anything new that omits current DVC-Y members.

//ETA: perhaps create a new third tier-- but make it a middle tier? Raise the min to 300 but grandfather all DVC-Y to the new higher third, but then make a new 100-150 point middle tier with limited benefits?

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

…I do wonder how DVC views the CFW performance so far, they had to have thought it would do better than it has? Money wise they probably dont care a ton, they still rent what they have well enough I'm sure, but the actual sales bit has gotta be way lower than even they projected?

This is why I think all resorts going forward will have higher point charts with lower dues. Yes, there are a few other issues but mostly nobody wants to by the cabins because of the enormous membership fees they pay year after year, even if it works out cheaper than a 6 bed room at any other resort after calculating the point chart x MF required.

Just curious... how many direct points do y'all own?

Just under 400.

All members that are currently DVC-Y (from the 90s OGs to today's 150 minimums) expect that their purchase grants them the benefits for the life of their eligible contract(s).

There’s no reason for that expectation, Disney expressly says they can pull or change perks at any time and has in the past.

Instead of new benefits for members that own more direct points, DVC should instead work on increasing the benefits of direct point usage (e.g. needing direct points for MMB AP).

They are doing that now, and have been moving in that direction with restricted resorts, but for most of us, it’s not enough to move the needle on needing direct points after the first 200 or so.

I see raising the minimum from 150 as the best answer, but not necessarily creating anything new that omits current DVC-Y members.

//ETA: perhaps create a new third tier-- but make it a middle tier? Raise the min to 300 but grandfather all DVC-Y to the new higher third, but then make a new 100-150 point middle tier with limited benefits?

This would completely defeat the purpose of motivating people who have had 25-150 direct (or even grandfathered resale!) points forever to go back to direct for the next 100/200/300 points.

Having given it more thought, probably the smartest thing for Disney to do is offer some unique (but amazing) benefits that are expressly time limited for 2-5 years after purchasing 100+ direct points.

 

[atthebeachclub]

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

If they want to sell CFW, they’d better…

 

[Girlstar30]

If I started buying in the future and the choices were direct or resale restricted with the equivalent of what direct prices are now and way cheaper for resale because theyre restricted, I would not buy more direct.

I would buy the direct I bought now then restricted resale in smaller denominations (200 vdh direct, 100 poly, 100 akv, 100 vgf, 100 riv, 100 blt, 100 bwv, 100 ccv and 100 aul) and create my own vacation club and call it a day.

No way I would ever pay for 1000 direct points so im not sure if their plan is going to work as well as they'd like if they continue this path, people can only buy what they can pay.

Im sure a lot of people just buy the 150 points direct for the perks. So maybe they raise that to 200 to keep it going who knows. I personally wouldn't want to see tiered benefits, its just going to create fomo and I want the product to stay as close to what I bought as possible but thats just me... It irritated me when they introduced the pearl tier on dcl so im sure a tier above 1k would irritate me too and yeah u can bet they wont include resale in those tiers so I wouldn't even qualify for whatever 1k would give you and its another reminder the resale is less desirable for DVC

 

[muppets3d]

I think the cabins were roped in to DVC just so DVC would pay for new cabins. They sell for cash on WDW's website for very close to the annual dues cost (even ignoring the buy-in), so it makes no sense to ever buy there assuming that holds.

I'm not sure looping LSL in to the trust would make the story that much better for the cabins.

LSL may end up being the closest thing to Aulani we ever see at WDW if they do add it to the CFW trust. It will never sell out, depending on how much of the 900 or so rooms are DVC vs cash because there are still 300 or so cabins worth of points as well.

 

[kilik64]

I think the cabins were roped in to DVC just so DVC would pay for new cabins. They sell for cash on WDW's website for very close to the annual dues cost (even ignoring the buy-in), so it makes no sense to ever buy there assuming that holds.

I'm not sure looping LSL in to the trust would make the story that much better for the cabins.

LSL may end up being the closest thing to Aulani we ever see at WDW if they do add it to the CFW trust. It will never sell out, depending on how much of the 900 or so rooms are DVC vs cash because there are still 300 or so cabins worth of points as well.

Well the thought process is that LSL and CFW would essentially be the same if in the trust, right? CFW points and LSL points would be equal and the same for use at either resort for 11 months? At least that's how I think everyone expects that to work?

Would also figure there is some way to mix the dues together so CFW is lower? All that to help a bad product that should never have been DVC in the first place.

I don't know that I'd want to buy into LSL if that is what happens, I would have zero desire to stay in the cabins and that all being one in the same would mean availability would be harder to come by in the LSL rooms if lots of people have that same feeling. Why I don't think this LSL going into the trust is gonna happen, it's gonna be a normal dvc offering, the same as the rest have been.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

Well the thought process is that LSL and CFW would essentially be the same if in the trust, right? CFW points and LSL points would be equal and the same for use at either resort for 11 months? At least that's how I think everyone expects that to work?

Would also figure there is some way to mix the dues together so CFW is lower? All that to help a bad product that should never have been DVC in the first place.

I don't know that I'd want to buy into LSL if that is what happens, I would have zero desire to stay in the cabins and that all being one in the same would mean availability would be harder to come by in the LSL rooms if lots of people have that same feeling. Why I don't think this LSL going into the trust is gonna happen, it's gonna be a normal dvc offering, the same as the rest have been.

Good point. The trust model would need to incorporate the dues at all locations. For some that would be much higher than they are paying for a single resort, especially if they include the non Disney park area resorts.

 

[muppets3d]

Well the thought process is that LSL and CFW would essentially be the same if in the trust, right? CFW points and LSL points would be equal and the same for use at either resort for 11 months? At least that's how I think everyone expects that to work?

Would also figure there is some way to mix the dues together so CFW is lower? All that to help a bad product that should never have been DVC in the first place.

I don't know that I'd want to buy into LSL if that is what happens, I would have zero desire to stay in the cabins and that all being one in the same would mean availability would be harder to come by in the LSL rooms if lots of people have that same feeling. Why I don't think this LSL going into the trust is gonna happen, it's gonna be a normal dvc offering, the same as the rest have been.

It's a good point that there are a lot of points tied up in those cabins so even if they do loop LSL in, it may not make that big of a difference with dues and it may make Lodge villas difficult to get versus the cabins.

It may also be similar to what happened with VGF - adding in BPK by and large helped that resort. Dues are among the lowest in the program and availability still isn't that big of an issue, at least in my experience. It's not like all the BPK owners are clamoring for a 3 bedroom in the original Villas building. By and large it seems like BPK owners are happy staying in BPK. Availability may be a little tighter now than before BPK (I bought during the fire sale so I don't have any earlier knowledge), but it's not like the deluxe studios are being walked year-round either.

 

[sethschroeder]

1 and its not close

Resale restrictions are a long term plan which will absolutely pay off for Disney.

The issue is right now resale has lots of stay options. That will diminish over time and 2042 will be a massive first step when all of Epcot is removed from resale access unless you buy at a Epcot resort.

I can see some tightening of the resale resorts around MK at that point since the portion of points near a theme park for resale possible stays will shift.

 

[tidefan]

Would also figure there is some way to mix the dues together so CFW is lower? All that to help a bad product that should never have been DVC in the first place.

Bad product for sales or for stays, especially using points from other properties? Personally, I love that the Cabins are in the DVC program. We will have our 5th stay in them in a month or so and can't wait. It seems as though many in the program agree with this as they are very hard to get unless you are right on it at 7-months.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I can see some tightening of the resale resorts around MK at that point since the portion of points near a theme park for resale possible stays will shift.

It’s interesting you say that. I was just telling a friend who likes to stay in high roller villas that he might need to own at VGF to get into the bigger rooms there by 2042, because once BCV/BWV/BRV are eliminated, for “park-adjacent” resorts, you’re left with BLT (not sure it’s mix?), VGF (very few villas relative to studios), and PVB (even more dramatic skew between villas and studios!)— meanwhile, there will still be massive numbers of resale OKW-E, SSR, and AUL points looking to trade into the more desirable park-adjacent resorts and many of those people will want villas and not studios (along with direct owners who just prefer MK anyway).

To me, this makes VGF, BLT, and CCV the smartest bets for holding their value from about 2035-2045. Hard to say what happens after that. I guess Poly maybe belongs in that category as well? I still haven’t been there since they opened Island Tower because there hasn’t been much at MK to tempt our DLR-based family.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Bad product for sales or for stays, especially using points from other properties? Personally, I love that the Cabins are in the DVC program. We will have our 5th stay in them in a month or so and can't wait. It seems as though many in the program agree with this as they are very hard to get unless you are right on it at 7-months.

Love that they are working out so well for you. We’ve considered it but only seem availability during mid-summer trips which seems less than ideal. Do you just drive from your cabin to the theme parks or take multiple busses or ??

What do you think is the best season to stay at them for maximum enjoyment (outside of Halloween when we (a) can’t get time off school and (b) would like have no chance of sleeping around our way in.

 

[sethschroeder]

I was just telling a friend who likes to stay in high roller villas that he might need to own at VGF

I did the math previously:

Post in thread 'Riviera Resale'

Sep 2, 2020

I don't think its that we can't comprehend it, we just don't think its that big of a deal. Staying at an Epcot resort is nice but its not the be all end all for most people, who from anecdotal experience on these boards, are wishy-washy about which resort to buy in the first place.

And while I agree that trading at 7 months will become ever harder until SSR expires, it won't lock up entirely.

You are losing a significant percentage of bookable rooms in the most sought after location within DVC (Epcot/MK area).

For total rooms just at WDW:
4679 total rooms in the resorts without...

• sethschroeder

• 

It will be slightly off because of VGF/POLY expansions but still gives you some idea.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I did the math previously:

Post in thread 'Riviera Resale'

Sep 2, 2020

I don't think its that we can't comprehend it, we just don't think its that big of a deal. Staying at an Epcot resort is nice but its not the be all end all for most people, who from anecdotal experience on these boards, are wishy-washy about which resort to buy in the first place.

And while I agree that trading at 7 months will become ever harder until SSR expires, it won't lock up entirely.

You are losing a significant percentage of bookable rooms in the most sought after location within DVC (Epcot/MK area).

For total rooms just at WDW:
4679 total rooms in the resorts without...

• sethschroeder

• 

It will be slightly off because of VGF/POLY expansions but still gives you some idea.

I agree with your point, but I’m saying there’s an additional skew on top of it—that not only will it be harder to stay at MK, but it will be much harder to stay at villas at MK, since so much of VGF and PBV are studios.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

1 and its not close

Resale restrictions are a long term plan which will absolutely pay off for Disney.

The issue is right now resale has lots of stay options. That will diminish over time and 2042 will be a massive first step when all of Epcot is removed from resale access unless you buy at a Epcot resort.

I can see some tightening of the resale resorts around MK at that point since the portion of points near a theme park for resale possible stays will shift.

Resales won’t stop for restricted resorts. Points don’t vanish when an owner doesn’t want them anymore. Will price be lower for those resales, perhaps but it will be a long time before all points will be restricted. And that will drive the difference in price between new and used even more. Plus if it deflates the value substantially, it deflates the product new.

 

[sethschroeder]

Resales won’t stop for restricted resorts. Points don’t vanish when an owner doesn’t want them anymore. Will price be lower for those resales, perhaps but it will be a long time before all points will be restricted. And that will drive the difference in price between new and used even more. Plus if it deflates the value substantially, it deflates the product new.

Unless I misunderstood the OP was asking what incentivizes buying Direct instead of Resale.

In 2042 not being able to stay anywhere around Epcot and possibly having a harder time getting in to MK with resale unless you buy at the resort will push people to buying direct.

Then by 2064 if you buy resale it can only be at the resort you stay at with no ability to move around.

If you want to talk about what would increase the cost of resale then it would be removing the resale restriction and everyone benefits. That is an even easier answer.

 

[Brian Noble]

and everyone benefits.

...excepting Disney, of course.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

Unless I misunderstood the OP was asking what incentivizes buying Direct instead of Resale.

In 2042 not being able to stay anywhere around Epcot and possibly having a harder time getting in to MK with resale unless you buy at the resort will push people to buying direct.

Then by 2064 if you buy resale it can only be at the resort you stay at with no ability to move around.

If you want to talk about what would increase the cost of resale then it would be removing the resale restriction and everyone benefits. That is an even easier answer.

Not looking to increase the price of resale just to increase it. Saying that resale closer to the price of direct does two things. 1. Makes people think harder about just paying the extra for direct 2. Makes DVC a product above the game level of other timeshare resorts.

Secondary to that, DVC started with the thought of enticing the elite, money wise, to buy. They wanted the elite to vacation here often and spend elite $$. But they couldn’t pull it off. Thus they had to lower the minimum point purchase and what followed was the demand for studios over the larger villas they expected to be the demand. Elite buyers are much more likely to look at the investment side of purchases, and higher resale supports a better investment. So no, I don’t necessarily agree that restrictions will pay off for Disney.

 

[kilik64]

Bad product for sales or for stays, especially using points from other properties? Personally, I love that the Cabins are in the DVC program. We will have our 5th stay in them in a month or so and can't wait. It seems as though many in the program agree with this as they are very hard to get unless you are right on it at 7-months.

Sales, you cant get in because theres like 10 cabins declared, so I dont think the demand is super high being the reason for harder availability.

(Intentional hyperbolic number, but its pretty low, they have zero need to declare more either because sales are so low)