Is DVC Getting Too Big ???

[gppnj]

I don't think so, but I'd rather see the resorts all developed to be about the same size - preferrably 200 - 300 units (VWL is too small - SSR too large), with multiple themes and locations. This would help balance the supply and demand for non-home resorts (i.e. SSR as a larger resort has more owners than VWL as the smallest resort. Even if they both want the other resort at the same proportion, SSR owners are going to be less happy the VWL owners). However, more variation means higher costs -plus there are only so many resorts that they can add DVC to and keep it what it is - and I understand why this isn't the priority for DVD.

I think this is exactly right. A relatively large resort that many members find less desirable will strain the system because many owners there will be clamoring to stay elsewhere. Things will be more balanced if they make all the resorts as equal as possible in terms of desirability. There are many ways to do this. It's a combination of location, point costs, amenities, theming, room size, and probably some other factors I'm not even considering.

Actually I think SSR could have a problem not in terms of its desirability relative to other DVC resorts but internally in terms of some sections versus others. Most of the existing sections are close to the themed pool or can have Downtown Disney views. I don't believe the newer sections will have either one of those things. As a result, I think the people looking to stay at SSR will all be looking to stay in the older sections, and many will start off their vacations slightly annoyed because they're not getting what they want. All is not lost, though. Disney can nip this problem in the bud by building a second themed pool, a restaurant, or both near the newer sections. That will be the carrot that gets people to want to stay in those sections.

Anyway, I digressed a bit. The point is that different resorts will always have different pros and cons. However, for the system to stay balanced and for the most members to be as satisfied as possible, it's good to strive to have the pros and cons all balance out so that no resort is much more or less desirable than the others in the aggregate. (On an individual level, we'll always have our own preferences.) In the beginning, this would essentially be a guessing game for Disney, but now that they've got a number of resorts under their belts and know what people like and dislike, balancing should be easier.

 

[tjkraz]

Disney can nip this problem in the bud by building a second themed pool, a restaurant, or both near the newer sections. That will be the carrot that gets people to want to stay in those sections.

That would help, but IMO an equally valuable move would be to allow guests to reserve specific "neighborhoods" of the resort at the time of booking. Give guests the ability to book that DTD view (Congress Park) or close to the main pool / Community Hall / Spa (The Springs) at the time the reservation is made. It's no different that the multiple classes / views at the Boardwalk.

As an owner at SSR, I imagine it will be rare that I will ever have trouble booking my Home resort, even on short notice. But I deserve the ability to guarantee a specific area of the resort when I call 11 months ahead of time.

 

[rinkwide]

...A relatively large resort...

<I>Relativley</I> large? It'll be bigger than BWV, BCV and VWL combined.

I'd say 400/500 units at SSR would have been about right. Then add 200 at CR, 200 at DGC, 200 at AKL, 200 at...

I'm sure DVD thinks ownership balance is important (but it's apparently not as valuable to them as maintained margin).

 

[crisi]

As crisi says, those who own at the smaller resorts will (as a group), probably be more satisified with their ability to get reservations at non-home resorts than those who own at the larger resorts.

Its probably more correct to say that people who want to book larger non-home resorts will be more satisfied than people who like smaller non-home resorts. It doesn't matter if you own BCVs or SSR - at six and a half months when both of you are trying to get into VWL its still going to be difficult. On the other hand, when both of you are trying to get into OKW it shouldn't be too hard. However, if you are happy with your BCV or SSR home you will be content if you've made the reservation in advance, or if you really don't care if you end up at OKW or VWL, you will be content whatever happens.

 

[bcvillastwo]

Ultimately the issue of whether DVC is too big or not will come down to supply and demand. I would imagine that Disney is watching the numbers pretty closely at all of the DVC properties and I bet they can tell you which have the most and which the least demand. If things start to change in a negative way all they have to do is stop production of new units until demand increases to the point where they feel it is safe to build more.

Supply and demand also applys to us as individual DVC members. I suspect that if you own at one of resorts that have a large number of units then you are going to have a much better chance of getting in at your home resort if you wait until the 7 month window than if you own at a smaller one and try to get reservations at the 7 month window. As is repeated over and over, the mantra of buy where you want to stay is important but in my view it is more important at the smaller sized resorts like BCV and WLV.

Another example of supply and demand has to do with what points sell for on the open market. I just checked the Time Share Store and basic economics seems to be working just fine. BCV (282 Units) has two contracts available right now, one for $95 a point and the other $87 a point. On the other hand OKW (761 units) had about 15 contracts for sale ranging from $76 to $80 per point.

BCV low supply vs high demand equals higher price whereas OKW higher supply, lower demand equals lower price. (Still at this point those who bought OKW early on would do very well if they were able to sell their contracts for anywhere between $76 to $80 a point.)

No one can predict the future with any accuracy and it is possible that DVC could get too big (some think it already is) but to my way of thinking the real issue still comes down to can you get a reservation when you want to get a reservation and where you want to get it. As everyone knows there are so many variables that can impact our ability to get what we want when we want it whre DVC reservations are concerned.

However, if you have purchased at the place you think you would most like to stay (oh the 11 month advantage) and you have a great deal of flexibility in your schedule then I doubt if you will have any trouble getting into your home resort, or any place else. On the other hand, if you have an inflexible schedule and you haven't bought where you want to stay then you might have a problem getting into something other than your home resort.

As I said in the beginning--its supply and demand.

 

[tjkraz]

Ultimately the issue of whether DVC is too big or not will come down to supply and demand. I would imagine that Disney is watching the numbers pretty closely at all of the DVC properties and I bet they can tell you which have the most and which the least demand. If things start to change in a negative way all they have to do is stop production of new units until demand increases to the point where they feel it is safe to build more.

Why would they do that? Why would they even care about demand at indiviudal resorts?

DVC is (reportedly) having no trouble selling points at SSR by describing the program as it is--11 months at your home, 7 months elsewhere. People are buying DVC points, and that's all that matters.

Whether owners are satisfied with the ability to reserve rooms at individual resorts is another matter altogether. And while I 100% agree with the numbers that crisi and others have posted regarding demand at the smaller resorts, what has yet to materialize is any sort of negative outcry from members regarding inability to book at specific resorts.

Could just be that our fellow members are a lot more realistic and flexible than we typically give them credit for...

Another example of supply and demand has to do with what points sell for on the open market. I just checked the Time Share Store and basic economics seems to be working just fine. BCV (282 Units) has two contracts available right now, one for $95 a point and the other $87 a point. On the other hand OKW (761 units) had about 15 contracts for sale ranging from $76 to $80 per point.

BCV low supply vs high demand equals higher price whereas OKW higher supply, lower demand equals lower price. (Still at this point those who bought OKW early on would do very well if they were able to sell their contracts for anywhere between $76 to $80 a point.)

That's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. OKW has been open for 12 years now--BCV only about 3 years. Most OKW owners have been members for a longer period of time, thus having a much greater likelihood of encountering circumstances that would make them decide to sell.

On the other hand, if you have an inflexible schedule and you haven't bought where you want to stay then you might have a problem getting into something other than your home resort.

What I think you meant to say is that if you can't book on more than 7 months notice you'll have trouble getting into the smaller resorts.

 

[lllovell]

Ok - one of you vets help me out here.

How much bigger "resort" wise is SSR going to be than OKW? (not # of rooms....but the way the resort is laid out.) There is only one "theme" pool there, one restaurant, one little market area, one HH. I suspect that during peak times, there will probably be a snack type area at the quiet pools of SSR (at least the ones that are much further from the main pool and AP now) and in my head, I just dont see SSR and OKW being that different.

My point is that there is so much outcry about SSR being so big and that people aren't going to want to stay "further away" from the HH, pool and restaurant area of the resort, but it seems to me that you can get pretty far back into OKW and have it be one heck of a walk to the HH. Is there really a difference here? Maybe because it is older, the cry has already happened and gone away? I guess I just dont' see it being all that different.

Laura

 

[RobDoc]

Ok - one of you vets help me out here.

How much bigger "resort" wise is SSR going to be than OKW? (not # of rooms....but the way the resort is laid out.) There is only one "theme" pool there, one restaurant, one little market area, one HH. I suspect that during peak times, there will probably be a snack type area at the quiet pools of SSR (at least the ones that are much further from the main pool and AP now) and in my head, I just dont see SSR and OKW being that different. ...

Physically, SSR will be no larger than OKW in terms of distance to the public areas of the resort (marina, check-in, restaurant, main pool). While there will eventually be many more villas, they will be concentrated in 18 buildings. OKW has 49 buildings.

All of the SSR buildings that will be completed this year will be closer than the South Point (and many of the Turtle Pond) buildings at OKW. Even some of the 6 Phase III buildings will be closer than those areas. It appears to me that the furthest SSR buildings will be about the same distance to the pool (and possibly closer) than those areas at OKW.

"Those areas" at OKW are still only about a 10 minute walk to the pool - similar to the walk to DD from SSR.

 

[Daitcher]

Is DVC getting too big.During a recent trip to WDW we noticed a big marketing push for DVC ,Disneys so called best kept secret.There are kiosks and advertisements all over the parks and buses.It seems to me that as DVC gets larger it is going to be harder and harder to book resorts at the 7 month window.Several castmates told us that the Contempory wings are going to be converted to DVC and also the treehouses at the Disney Institute could also become DVC.Does anyone know if there is a maximum number of DVC resorts and or points Disney plans for. When purchasing DVC be sure you like your home resort the most as that is going to be the resort you are most likely to stay at during busy times.We have 200 points at VWL which we feel is the best resort in DVC and would not mind staying there each visit.

No DVC isn't getting to big IMO. More choices benefits everyone. The only time 7 months is an issue is if you must travel at peak times at a certain resort. With a little flexibility you'll get something. We've always gotten first choice for our dates at 7 months or less. We own SSR and will not stay there again. This means we only book at 7 months or less. I just booked BCV at 6 months out in May in a one bedroom. It was no problem and I didn't have to switch my dates. All the naysayers seem to think booking at 7 months will get tougher and tougher. This paranoia has not played out. There is room for us all. Thanks for the post.


DAVE

 

[DisFlan]

Timeshares are hot everywhere right now. Disney is doing competitive marketing. It's probably more obvious to us because most of DVC is in a more concentrated area than the biggies like Marriott or Fairfield.

I don't think DVC is too big. For now. But I think that at some point it can certainly be overbuilt within the confines of WDW. Another addition or two as large as SSR might be the tipping point. I'd hate to see WDW become Walt Disney Timeshare World.

DisFlan

 

[debloco]

The real issue is if Disney adds capacity at unpopular locations and people purchase there to get into the DVC system, but never intend to stay there. That results in less availability at the smaller and more popular locations.

 

[AlanH]

As a new DVC member I can't comment on whether DVC is getting too big. However a view comments. I read somewhere that Disney likes the fact that they can recover their investment in a timeshare much sooner than an investment in a resort. As far as Saratoga Springs goes, I understand it may end up the largest so far of the DVC locations. With the demise of the Disney Institute and the fact that many of the structures were almost 30 years old, Disney felt they had to do something with the site.

As far as the advertising goes. With the decision to build Saratoga Springs the DVC was faced with alot of inventory to move. The feeling was that the DVC was not well known by the public, therefore the advertising campaign. This included a very nice discount program for cast members of which my wife and I took advantage.

 

[Inga]

I think my DH and I went into the whole DVC thing recently without thinking this through as much as we should have. For us, we have OKW as our home base, but we never intended to stay there...ok, this is foolish, but it was our impression that we would be able to book at other resorts. I think with the increase volume of rooms, and the challenge of booking into those resorts that are closer to Disney parks, there will continue to be a race against time at that 7 month mark.

So here we were, one week ago, just got our membership #, and tried to book into BWV for the first of December.

Crazy right?

I guess we never considered the difficulties in booking at another resort other than our home. I don't think we realized, until we made the call to member services and got put on umpteen waitlists because everything was sold out for the first week of Dec, that booking was so competative.

That is just being naive, I guess...it sounds more and more that we will have to decide upon our home resort with our trips. Not a big deal, but I guess we were hoping we could do more hopping than I think we will be able to do because everyone is competing for particular resorts...

Inga

 

[rinkwide]

The real issue is if...people purchase there to get into the DVC system, but never intend to stay there...

You mean like this?

We own SSR and will not stay there again.

 

[bcvillastwo]

tjkraz took issue with several of my earlier comments. All of my comments were opinion based on my understanding of business and economics. While I am not an expert in either area I have studied both and believe I have more than just a rudimentary knowledge of both. I could be wrong. But with that said.

Earlier I mentioned that I thought Disney was probably "watching the numbers pretty closely" and that if the situation warranted it they would slow the building of DVC resorts down. tjkraz ask the following question.

Why would they do that? Why would they even care about demand at indiviudal resorts?

In was referring to Disney looking at the entire DVC property structure not just demand at individual resorts. But, Disney management would be foolish to not watch both the overall ebb and flow of all DVC properties but also the ebb and flow of each individual property. As good businessmen (and women) this would be a prudent thing to do. Fore instance, if demand is down and the trend has been down you better believe they should start asking why and the answer might just be to put off an up coming project.

tjkraz also took issue with my discussion of the higher cost of DVC than OKW. He said

That's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. OKW has been open for 12 years now--BCV only about 3 years. Most OKW owners have been members for a longer period of time, thus having a much greater likelihood of encountering circumstances that would make them decide to sell

First, this is a discussion of supply and demand and clearly there is less supply of BCV than there is demand, otherwise the price would not be higher than OKW. The fact that OKW has been open longer and thus peopel have been members longer has no bearing on the subject of supply and demand.

Finally, tjkraz said

What I think you meant to say is that if you can't book on more than 7 months notice you'll have trouble getting into the smaller resorts.

No, I said exactly what I mean to say earlier. While tjkraz may be correct, it's entirely possible that this could hold true for the larger resorts as well at some time in the future.

 

[lllovell]

Inga,

What you are not taking into account is that those weeks in December (the first 2 weeks specifically) are HIGH volume DVC vacationing weeks. DVC busy periods are not always directly related to Disney busy times and this is one case where it is very obvious. I am sorry you didn't get an immediate reservation, but I bet you will get something from a wait list as people get closer to actually going.

There ARE going to be times when you have to make your reservations right at the 7 month window if you don't want to stay at your home resort. Luckily, at least for now, they are few and far between. Want to stay on property during those first 2 weeks in December, you will have to call the first day you can at the 7 month window and still you might not get into the resort of your choice (but you will almost definately find something). The longer you wait, the chances are good you won't find something as you found out. Want to get into an EPCOT resort during the Food and Wine festival - - - chances are pretty good unless you OWN there, its not going to happen because the owners are finding it hard to book those rooms during that period unless they call closer to the 11 month window.

This doesn't mean that your membership is worthless or that you will have trouble during MOST periods. It does mean if you are going during a peak DVC season, the closer to the 7 month window you can all (or 11 month at your home resort) the better off you will be.

Doc - thanks for the info....You confirmed what I have thought in that SSR isn't actually physically laid out to take up huge amounts of acerage compared to OKW. I can see tjkraz's point and I think that it would not have been a bad idea for them to set up the different areas so that you can request them (I do hope to get a DTD view at some point ) but I also think that like OKW, the different areas of the resort will have different appeal and will help balance the requests.

Laura

 

[lllovell]

The real issue is if Disney adds capacity at unpopular locations and people purchase there to get into the DVC system, but never intend to stay there. That results in less availability at the smaller and more popular locations.

Yes and no Debloco. Dave (daitcher - who Rinkwide quoted to prove your point) HAS stayed at SSR and distinctly didn't like the resort itself. I think the polls that Diane did eons ago showed that there will always be owners that end up never staying at their home resort (each resort had a certain percentage). It is impossible to know if these people 1. did it intentionally (buying in at VB for example for the cost) 2. fell in love with a different resort after buying and don't want to lose money by reselling/purchasing at a new resort 3. Just can't get into their resort based on their personal travel abilities or 4. who knows!

Bottom line, I can't take your spot if you make your ressie before the 7 month window opens at your home resort. Another owner in your resort can, but no matter how big DVC gets, you always have the advantage over me at a resort I don't own at. To me, it levels the playing field.

 

[tjkraz]

In was referring to Disney looking at the entire DVC property structure not just demand at individual resorts.

Then I'm not sure why you mentioned DVC tracking which resorts are "most and which the least demand." In DVC's eyes, I think indiviudal resort demand is pretty irrelevant. They may use it as basis to decide on amenities and location for a new resort, but I don't think they really care how high demand might be for a resort like BCV.

But, Disney management would be foolish to not watch both the overall ebb and flow of all DVC properties but also the ebb and flow of each individual property. As good businessmen (and women) this would be a prudent thing to do. Fore instance, if demand is down and the trend has been down you better believe they should start asking why and the answer might just be to put off an up coming project.

Certainly they will have to project and model future demand for DVC points. There's no question of that. But with project lead times running 24-36 months, they can't exactly make snap decisions based upon fluctuating market conditions.

They already put themselves behind the 8-ball two years ago by having nothing to sell for nearly a year between the sell-out of BCV and the opening of SSR. I doubt that will happen again. IMO, they're more likely to set agressive construction schedules and respond to minor shifts in point demand by alterning prices and incentives.

First, this is a discussion of supply and demand and clearly there is less supply of BCV than there is demand, otherwise the price would not be higher than OKW. The fact that OKW has been open longer and thus peopel have been members longer has no bearing on the subject of supply and demand.

Sure it does. It speaks to the fact that there is more SUPPLY at OKW. I didn't disagree with your logic...just pointing out that there are more factors to be considered on the supply side than the fact that OKW has about 150% more rooms than BCV.

No, I said exactly what I mean to say earlier.

The original comment was "...if you have an inflexible schedule and you haven't bought where you want to stay then you might have a problem getting into something other than your home resort."

So, you're saying that an owner at VWL, who has an inflexible schedule, will have a better chance of booking their home resort than, say, SSR? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Inga]

Laura

Thank you for your comments! I am wondering, then, what times during value season (ie low season at the parks) is it easier to book DVC? "Low time" at the parks is becoming fewer and far between.

What has the experience been with booking in January, which is when we normally travel to WDW?

Inga

 

[crisi]

The real issue is if Disney adds capacity at unpopular locations and people purchase there to get into the DVC system, but never intend to stay there. That results in less availability at the smaller and more popular locations.

I'd keep popularity out of it. It gets into resort wars. We wouldn't want to imply that SSR were somehow inferior because it is large - it isn't and its a favorite of plenty of people....while VWL is superior (I happen to like it a lot - and I'm a BWV owner - but it certainly isn't everyone's favorite resort) simply because its small.

You don't even need to go there. The simple reality is that there are only a few VWL owners looking for rooms at somewhere other than VWL on any given night compared to the number of SSR owners looking for a room at somewhere other than SSR on a given night. And that there are fewer rooms at VWL than at SSR on that night for people looking to stay there. SSR could be a more popular resort - but it needs to be more than four times more popular if it is going to balance demand with the small VWL. That's the "just math" part.

But that doesn't have anything at all to do with the overall size of DVC, but the relative sizes of the resorts to one another. And that only impacts people trying to switch. Those of us that understand the system probably will never really have a big problem - we know to call right at seven months, day by day if need be, waitlist if necessary, and have a backup plan. Its the people who don't know (Hi, Inga - you'll learn - early December is tough this close - but next year you'll likely find something right at seven months) who are likely to have problems. They may or may not create a stink.

As for advertising, AlanH has a great point. DVC at BWV, BCV and VWL had a in house audience to advertise to - people staying at those resorts or nearby who saw the construction. SSR is off the beaten path, some Disney visitors aren't going to see it at all, some won't realize its on property. Therefore its a bigger project with lower visability.