Is anyone annoyed about Disney's vacation club building?

[Jynohn]

Since buying into DVC, we now take 2-3 trips to WDW yearly, instead of once a year or every other year like we used to. While our accomodations are already paid for and we now buy annual passes, we're still spending $$$ at Disney each trip for food, souvenirs, etc.

DVC is a way for Disney to "lock in" it's customers to a WDW vacation each year. If I'm deciding where to go with my family on vacation, I'm much more likely to choose a Disney trip given that I've already invested into it. It only makes financial sense for Disney to want more DVC members, as they are pretty much guaranteeing themselves repeat guests who'll be back year after year and spending money.

With that said, I haven't seen any decline in the "regular" Disney resorts as a result of DVC. We usually stay at the other resorts for a night or two before checking into DVC, and we have always had very pleasant stays. The only exception to that is the Contemporary North Garden wing, where we stayed once through SOG. We thought the wing was in deplorable condition, and Disney should have been ashamed of themselves for letting it get to that point. If the rumors do turn out to be true, in my opinion, DVC is doing that resort a favor by giving it a much overdue makeover.

 

[dbm20th]

Unless I am misinterpreting your post or the one you reference, logically, it is a safe bet that a large number of all DVC members have stayed on site prior to their DVC purchase. Therefore you indeed have converted a cash guest to a DVC guest. I can not see why you would need evidence of it. I'm sure if you poll members here, it would certainly support this logical assumption. If CRO bookings have increased, then it is due to either more frequent cash guests or a more robust pool of Disney bound tourists. Otherwise, I agree with everything else.

Well, I am not referring to individual guests. I was only speaking of numbers. Since DVC has built all the rooms, and resorts have not seen a decrease in bookings, coupled with the fact that DVC resorts get many non-member bookings, the overall theory that DVC causes less cash customers is wrong. That's all I meant

 

[dbm20th]

Since buying into DVC, we now take 2-3 trips to WDW yearly, instead of once a year or every other year like we used to. While our accomodations are already paid for and we now buy annual passes, we're still spending $$$ at Disney each trip for food, souvenirs, etc.

And you are like nearly everyone esle who owns at DVC. And that is exactly why this is much, much more than a "grab the cash and run ploy."

 

[tjkraz]

There is absolutely no evidence of this at all. Every DVC property is built for that expressed purpose. As a result, all of these resorts add room options for cash customers. Attendance has increased at WDW, so there is no reason to believe that cash bookings have dropped. If you are concluding that people who would normally book at a resort are now DVC members, then how do explain that resort bookings have not dropped?

As I said, "all things being equal." It's undeniable that prior to joining DVC, many members were spending hundreds or thousands of dollars year-after-year-after-year for cash rooms. Those folks are no longer booking cash rooms...at least not anywhere near the frequency that they previously did.

Assuming you are correct (BTW, what is your source for concluding that resort bookings have not dropped?), Disney is able to control resort occupancy levels through room pricing and financial incentives (AP rates, "free" dining programs, etc.)

Setting room pricing is a function of supply and demand. Reduce the number of rooms in circulation (supply) and you can justify larger annual rate increases and/or you'll have fewer vacancies which are opened-up at AP discount rates.

I'm not trying to imply that DVC ownership is a slam-dunk for the public and a financial albatross for Disney. Obviously there are benefits to both partes.

 

[barreloflaughs]

Folks, the benefits of DVC to WDW are huge. It is a way for the company to bankroll the building of new resorts with a quick cash injection into the property.

Well, for my part, I don't see the bankrolling of new resorts as a benefit. I'd go so far to say that additional resorts are a detriment to the property (and I'm including All-Stars and Pop here although I hesitate to call them 'resorts').

I'm not conceptually opposed to DVC (although it ain't for me). What I'm opposed to is the focus on building out more rooms instead of focusing on the show in the parks and elsewhere on property. DVC is booming....big deal. The show is hurting. It's time to invest in the show and quit cramming as many rooms as possible onto the property.

barrel

 

[MJMcBride]

I'd go so far to say that additional resorts are a detriment to the property (and I'm including All-Stars and Pop here although I hesitate to call them 'resorts').

barrel

I couldn't disagree more with this. The more resorts on Disney property the better. Especially the value and moderate resorts. This allows me to stay on Disney property for my vacation. If there were only a few higher priced resorts, I would be forced to stay "off" property. Which would suck.

As for the DVC, I think its a great way for regular visitors to save money. As for reducing "cash" visitors, I'm not sure how thats true. The DVC resorts have been built, they have not converted "cash" rooms to DVC rooms. And I believe they continue to book cash rooms in at least the same numbers as before.

 

[barreloflaughs]

I couldn't disagree more with this. The more resorts on Disney property the better. Especially the value and moderate resorts. This allows me to stay on Disney property for my vacation. If there were only a few higher priced resorts, I would be forced to stay "off" property. Which would suck.

You really think the more resorts the merrier? Already, by placing the tacky motel that is 'Pop' on the very perimeter of the property, The Disney Company has replicated the very situation that vexed Walt in Anaheim (a tacky motel row). 20 years ago I wouldn't have thought it possible that the company would overbuild on it's 47 or so square miles to the extent that they have. I shudder to think how hideous the property will look and feel 20 years from now.

More rooms don't allow you to stay on property. Available rooms allow you to stay on property. Does Disney have an issue with overbooked hotels/motels? I'd be interested in hearing about those stats.

barrel

 

[tjkraz]

As for reducing "cash" visitors, I'm not sure how thats true. The DVC resorts have been built, they have not converted "cash" rooms to DVC rooms. And I believe they continue to book cash rooms in at least the same numbers as before.

That may be so, but if true it's due to other factors.

Take a look at the signature of dbm20th. He has an established pattern over the last 10+ years of visiting WDW every-other-year staying in resorts like POFQ and CSR. Apparently he bought into Saratoga Springs sometime in 2005 or 2006 judging by the changes in the trip patterns.

With that purchase, POFQ / CSR has lost his future business in approximately 2006, 2008, 2010, and so on. They will have one fewer guest willing to pay cash during each of those years. And that's just one DVC member. The same change in pattern happened to me and countless other DVC members. I haven't stayed in a non-DVC resort in over 5 years.

With DVC membership of 100,000 and growing, the impact on cash resort occupancy is already being felt on some levels and will only get bigger over time.

Disney can minimize this impact by attracting additional guests to stay on site. Things like Extra Magic Hours and the airport transportation have certainly been factors in swinging people back to staying on-site. But another big factor is room discounting. Witness the "free dining" promotion. That is 100% designed to sway people to stay at Disney resorts. How many millions of dollars is that promotion costing TWDC?

Imagine for a moment that there are NOT 2000 DVC rooms on property. Where do all of those people stay? Cash resorts. Occupancy goes up and suddenly there's no need to offer free dining or AP discount promotions--at least not in the sheer volumes that they are offered now.

Bottom line: with every DVC contract that Disney sells they pretty much eliminate a cash guest. To maintain occupancy at the cash resorts, Disney has to replace that guest with another via discounts or creative service offerings. In time, it will likely make sense to convert some cash rooms to DVC as another method of addressing vacancies.

 

[G8RFAN]

Between our week long DVC trips, we take quick weekend or long weekend trips at "cash" resorts. Some of them are spur of the moment decisions that get sunk when we are told there are absolutely no vacancies unless I want a $900 a night suite at the CSR or some insane per night rack rate somewhere on site. So there are periods during the year where they are at full utilization. During the slow times, they push the dining plan specials or add the deluxe inventory to the AP and the FL res specials. Ultimately, look at how run down the hotels around Maingate are or the once thriving but now seedy "cottage industry" that surrounded WDW is. On site inventory created this. People on site will tend to stay there and spend their money there. Should it have taken all this time to redevelop the 2000 Leagues attraction? No, but since OKW, they have done much to improve the existing repertoire at the parks and even managed to open a brand new park. So I'm not sure if they are guilty of concentrating all their efforts into "cashing in".

 

[YoHo]

dbm20th,

You mention that DVC has caused more APs to be purchased. What makes you think Disney wants to sell more APs?

Don't more APs mean less money in Disney's pocket for each individual ticket?

Disney is activly trying to discourage AP holders in California.

 

[MJMcBride]

You really think the more resorts the merrier? Already, by placing the tacky motel that is 'Pop' on the very perimeter of the property, The Disney Company has replicated the very situation that vexed Walt in Anaheim (a tacky motel row). 20 years ago I wouldn't have thought it possible that the company would overbuild on it's 47 or so square miles to the extent that they have. I shudder to think how hideous the property will look and feel 20 years from now.

More rooms don't allow you to stay on property. Available rooms allow you to stay on property. Does Disney have an issue with overbooked hotels/motels? I'd be interested in hearing about those stats.

barrel

Yes I do. To an extent. You cannot compare Pop to what happened at Anaheim. You may think its tacky. I agree with you. Fine, but its not in your face as you drive up to MK.

And more rooms = more available rooms. Logically, the more rooms and the varied their prices the greater the chance you can get a room at your price range. I think its great that Disney has many rooms, with many themes, at many different prices. I understand their definition of value is high and you can still get a much cheaper room at a Days Inn, but still. I know when I was a kid we could not afford a room on property since there were few rooms and they were generally high.

One of the few good things Eisner did was create a huge growth in "on property" rooms.

 

[MJMcBride]

Bottom line: with every DVC contract that Disney sells they pretty much eliminate a cash guest. To maintain occupancy at the cash resorts, Disney has to replace that guest with another via discounts or creative service offerings. In time, it will likely make sense to convert some cash rooms to DVC as another method of addressing vacancies.

But you are only guessing. At least to this point, Disney has been building additional DVC properties not replacing old properties. It seems that they have been booking the available spaces at least during the summer/holidays seasons. The discounts that I have seen have been "off season", particularly the hurricane season which has always been the case and may be more related to the price of gas, the ecomony, and/or surrounding competitors. If they weren't filling those rooms, they would have already replaced soom as DVC rooms. Why add to the Contemporary or build Saratoga if they weren't filling the Beach club or Caribbean Beach.

One thing you are not accounting for is the "forced" vacation. Lets look at dbm20th. In your example, he will be going in 2008, 2010, 2012, etc. Now he's forced to. He can't (without losing money) say in 2010: "Hey ya know instead of going to Disney this year, how about we try Alaska or a cruise or Hawaii". He "has" to go to Disney. Of course, he could go on a Disney cruise or maybe Disney will build a resort in Hawaii. Its a brillant way to ensure these Disney fans have to go to Disney. They have already committed to it.

 

[barreloflaughs]

Yes I do. To an extent. You cannot compare Pop to what happened at Anaheim. You may think its tacky. I agree with you. Fine, but its not in your face as you drive up to MK.

Pop is actually worse than what happened in Anaheim. The point of the 47 square miles was to prevent this crap from encroaching on the property not just the MK. What makes Pop worse is that the cheap, unimaginative boxes were built ON the property BY Disney.

And more rooms = more available rooms.

Again, the question is: is Disney regularly overbooked? I've never had a problem getting a room on-property (winter, spring, summer or fall).

One of the few good things Eisner did was create a huge growth in "on property" rooms.

Completely disagree. Eisner did lots of bad stuff at WDW and one of them was focusing on hotels (among other things) instead of entertainment...the show in the parks should be driving everything, not the quest to squeeze every possible dollar from every visitor. Eisner skimped on the show and went overboard on the squeeze (which includes overbuilding rooms).

barerl

 

[YoHo]

Before the explosion of the "crappy" resorts, Disney reservations during the summer peak could be sold out up to 2 years in advance.

Disney absolutly needed to build more resort, but they seriously overbuilt, because where the old WDW could make it through the 70s Malaise unscathed, now it can't sustain as well against economic downturns.

Further, The building of different resort classes completely failed to achieve the goals intended. It was supposed to get I-5 guests on site, but the vast majority of the Values are sold to regulars downgrading from the mods so they pay less and maybe go more often.

Disney has abandoned any pretense to get new guests and is relying on the fanatics.


Of course, I have no problem with Disney building low price accomidations on property, I have a big problem with the specific ones they built.....And I HATE the mods.

 

[tjkraz]

But you are only guessing. At least to this point, Disney has been building additional DVC properties not replacing old properties.

Not true. The Disney Institute was closed and (mostly) demolished in 2001 to make way for Saratoga Springs.

It seems that they have been booking the available spaces at least during the summer/holidays seasons. The discounts that I have seen have been "off season", particularly the hurricane season which has always been the case and may be more related to the price of gas, the ecomony, and/or surrounding competitors.

Again, not true. Discount codes are currently available for the period 10/1 to 12/23 and history has shown that Disney offers SOME discount about 95% of the year. The most notable exceptions may be the weeks around Easter plus Christmas week, but that's 3 or 4 weeks out of 52. The rest of the time, some sort of discounting is almost always available including other US holidays like Thanksgiving, Labor Day, Memorial Day, etc.

If they weren't filling those rooms, they would have already replaced soom as DVC rooms. Why add to the Contemporary or build Saratoga if they weren't filling the Beach club or Caribbean Beach.

As I pointed out, they already have with Saratoga Springs.

If the DVC rumors that have been circulating hold any truth, the next two developments are likely to be at the CR and AKL, and both projects would include permanent removal of cash rooms. At the CR, the North Garden Wing would be demolished to make way for the 15-story tower, and at the AKL, a block of existing rooms would be renovated to DVC units.

According to the most recent Annual Report, Disney's "East Coast" resorts had an average occupancy of 83% in fiscal 2005. While there are several weeks per year that the Disney resorts are sold-out, the vast majority of the time there are THOUSANDS of vacant rooms (there are around 25,000 Disney-owned rooms on property; 17% average vacancy means over 4000 empty rooms PER DAY on average) on property.

One thing you are not accounting for is the "forced" vacation. Lets look at dbm20th. In your example, he will be going in 2008, 2010, 2012, etc. Now he's forced to. He can't (without losing money) say in 2010: "Hey ya know instead of going to Disney this year, how about we try Alaska or a cruise or Hawaii". He "has" to go to Disney. Of course, he could go on a Disney cruise or maybe Disney will build a resort in Hawaii. Its a brillant way to ensure these Disney fans have to go to Disney. They have already committed to it.

Of course that's true. I didn't mention it only because it's irrelevant to a discussion of how DVC memberships hurt the cash resorts.

In addition to the big up-front payment for DVC, what you describe is obviously a huge benefit for Disney. Take my family for example. Prior to DVC, we made 3 trips in 7 years. Since buying we've made 5 trips in 3 years. Clearly we've put a lot of dollars in Disney's pockets that wouldn't have been there if we weren't DVC members.

But that doesn't change the fact that the cash resorts have pretty much lost us for good as customers and they'll have to find another way to replace us. We may just be one family who would have vacationed once every 2-3 years, but there are nearly 100,000 DVC families now, many of whom can claim the same thing.

 

[MJMcBride]

Not true. The Disney Institute was closed and (mostly) demolished in 2001 to make way for Saratoga Springs.

Thats unfair. The Disney Institute is not the same as closing a regular resort. It was a stupid idea that failed. Who the heck goes to Disney to take cooking classes?

And what is wrong with having enough rooms on property to get discounts. They fill them up or get close during the major seasons and we can get discounted rates "off season". I don't understand why this is bad.

I for one am glad there are plenty of choices. I don't disagree with Yoho that the decor choices at least of the Value places leave something to be desired. I couldn't agree more. But I'm glad the Value resorts are there. And frankly, they may be ugly. But you still don't see them as you're riding the monorail and whatnot. They don't intrude on you if you're staying there.

They are not taking away you're chance to stay at the Contemporary of AKL. Heck, I'm not in the DVC and I stayed at Old Key West. So frankly, I fail to understand the problem with the DVC.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Imagine for a moment that there are NOT 2000 DVC rooms on property. Where do all of those people stay? Cash resorts.

If that were the case then plenty of DVC owners like me wouldn't vacation at WDW every year like we do now... There's arguments on both sides of the coin, but what I can tell you from my personal experience/financial situation and my conversations with numerous other DVCers out there is that the DVC gives us the ability to afford a vacation every year at WDW at the likes of hotels similar to WL, BW, YBC, etc.

The way the hotel rates have gone up from when we first purchased our DVC points in 1996 there's no way on earth we'd be able to afford a 7-10 day WDW trip annually. Financing our DVC purchase, coupled with some tax relief and the ability to write-off property taxes made "owning" an interest in DVC that much more appealing.

If we didn't own DVC points, we'd get down every 3 years or so. Our trip prior to 1996 was 1993 and 1989 before that... From my estimation, WDW *gains* my DVC business annually as opposed to seeing it every 3-4 years on a cash basis.

Stories can be spun both ways.

 

[Galahad]

I'm annoyed by it from the standpoint that the bigger and more generic DVC becomes the less value it has for us. We like going to OKW. We do it every year. But there's nothing special about DVC any longer. The new resort is almost a generic hotel.

 

[Galahad]

Thats unfair. The Disney Institute is not the same as closing a regular resort. It was a stupid idea that failed. Who the heck goes to Disney to take cooking classes?

I think it was a great thing and it was a shame that it failed. We took a lot of the classes, including the cooking classes, and they were great. How many times can you ride on Dumbo? For frequent visitors I thought it was a great thing. It didn't play well with the masses though. Too bad, IMO.

 

[Galahad]

Again, the question is: is Disney regularly overbooked? I've never had a problem getting a room on-property (winter, spring, summer or fall).

I agree. The resorts have been very "un-busy" the last several times we've been to WDW. Crowds are not all that impressive either. Profits must be good but it doesn't seem like it's because more people are going. We've never had a problem getting a room either at a regular resort or at a DVC resort. The 11 month window/7 month window thing is unnecessary now. We've booked two bedroom villa's 4 days in advance.