Is this how "bashing" first begins?

[crisi]

but you said



So since the specific information is not available to know for certain where things stand, it would not be factual to state that SSR has skewed it.

Its mathematically impossible that adding ANY resort doesn't skew booking patterns - additional rooms just change the proportions - that is a statement of fact. Its also fact that there are less than 200 rooms at VWL - and that many people who don't own there want to stay there during certain seasons - and that each member added (regardless of its an SSR style large resort, an VAK "destination resort" or a small DVC added to the Poly) will add members who think it might be nice to book those rooms and add to the potential pool of seven month callers. What is personal is whether the tilt is good, bad or indifferent. If you were fond of the way things were back in the days when there was only OKW, BWV came along and skewed it - those darn BWV owners booking up your rooms so maybe you couldn't get those huge low point two bedrooms as dependably as you used to close to your trip. But you could have been an OKW owner saying "great just what I was looking for, a resort close to Epcot."

I used to think the tilt was bad myself - wanting a system with balance. But I've come to believe meaningful balance is impossible to achieve - Epcot resorts simply are more attractive to more people during F&W. VWL is simply more attractive to people around the holidays. Maybe not you personally, but many others. And you'd need a great tarot deck to set point values to control demand before a resort opens.

 

[BroganMc]

Its mathematically impossible that adding ANY resort doesn't skew booking patterns -

What is personal is whether the tilt is good, bad or indifferent.

Ah, but is it one resort that skews the system or every new resort with its general membership growth? The implied meaning being that a resort brings in members who seek to stay at other resorts only vs. a general increase in ownership that brings many to the 7 month window competition?

We can (and do) debate the former and cross into the realm of resort bashing. Meanwhile we gloss over the latter because it's crazy to assume a profitable company will stop trying to expand and make more profit.

 

[Dean]

Ah, but is it one resort that skews the system or every new resort with its general membership growth? The implied meaning being that a resort brings in members who seek to stay at other resorts only vs. a general increase in ownership that brings many to the 7 month window competition?

We can (and do) debate the former and cross into the realm of resort bashing. Meanwhile we gloss over the latter because it's crazy to assume a profitable company will stop trying to expand and make more profit.

I would disagree with crisi. While it may be true that every new resort has some affect on the system, if the demand is roughly the same as the previous resorts the affect is minimal overall. IMO, SSR is the only resort that has entered the system that is both large (many points) and where the membership as a whole are more likely to be vying at the 7 month window over the long haul.

 

[spiceycat]

Dean, aren't you leaving out the home resort feeling?

Now I also own at VWL and BWV - just a little - but OKW is home. No other DVC resort can feel that way to me.

I think more DVC owners love their home resort. If they don't and brought at the wrong place - then hey time to change it. But I really feel this is a small number of folks.

I have meet lots of SSR members that simply love it. It is until AKV opens - the best DVC resort yet. DVC upgraded lots of stuff from BCV - and more important they aren't doing what they did with BCV and VWL - trying to make it look old....

the story that goes with SSR is about the horses and race track - don't really remember because I wasn't interested when DVC first did the story.

Now since you own so many other timeshares - maybe you don't understand what I am saying. Although I do believe you do. OKW is home. No other DVC resort will ever have that feeling or WDW resort for that matter.

 

[Sammie]

I agree with Spiceycat, I simply do not think there are huge numbers, other than possibly here on these forums, of SSR owners wanting to spend most of their time at other resorts.

Certainly when an owner is new they are going to want to experience all that DVC offers and that is what the program is all about. But many are very happy with SSR; as are nonSSR owners such as us.

 

[Dean]

Dean, aren't you leaving out the home resort feeling?

Now I also own at VWL and BWV - just a little - but OKW is home. No other DVC resort can feel that way to me.

I think more DVC owners love their home resort. If they don't and brought at the wrong place - then hey time to change it. But I really feel this is a small number of folks.

I have meet lots of SSR members that simply love it. It is until AKV opens - the best DVC resort yet. DVC upgraded lots of stuff from BCV - and more important they aren't doing what they did with BCV and VWL - trying to make it look old....

the story that goes with SSR is about the horses and race track - don't really remember because I wasn't interested when DVC first did the story.

Now since you own so many other timeshares - maybe you don't understand what I am saying. Although I do believe you do. OKW is home. No other DVC resort will ever have that feeling or WDW resort for that matter.

Pat, I do understand to a degree, people's preferences in general tend to be somewhat emotional. I think the difference is that there's an emotional issue based on hard assets and one much like your personal college football team before the season begins that's somewhat irrational. IMO emotions can only go so far and can only make up for so much. The hard line question is what will the usage be over time compared to BCV, BWV and VWL with AKV still being a somewhat unknown entity.

As for loving SSR, that's not really the issue and I feel is one of the common misperceptions in this area. SSR is a fine resort as are all the DVC resorts. The real question is in comparing one resort to another and for DVC resorts, the usage of the ownership there compared to the usage at the other resorts. Remember there is a certain percentage of owners that bought SSR simply because that's what DVC was selling, another group that bought for the longer term and still another that bought because it was cheaper comparatively in the long run; many of these will also enjoy SSR many of their trips. While these issues are nothing new for DVC resorts that have come on board or being sold in recent years, the numbers are staggering in comparison. Plus this is really the first time that there has only been one resort selling, except for the newly introduced AKV which has slowed SSR sales dramatically from what I can see. VB and HH have the same issue but the numbers are much less plus those members will actually tend to get into SSR probably reducing the skew rather than increasing it. OKW would be in exactly the same predicament except for the lower points costs which insulate it to a degree.

I too prefer OKW of the current resorts but I enjoy all of them. Still, I have sold all of my OKW points because I don't normally need a 3 BR and that's the only reason to own there IMO, all else being equal. I realize that the hard numbers are not available for all to see and thus many will believe what they want to believe. Even if they were available to everyone some would try to come up with "explanations" that still counter the evidence.

 

[Sammie]

Even if they were available to everyone some would try to come up with "explanations" that still counter the evidence

That I will agree with, but it works both ways. Those that think it has not had a huge effect and those that think it has.

 

[Dean]

I agree with Spiceycat, I simply do not think there are huge numbers, other than possibly here on these forums, of SSR owners wanting to spend most of their time at other resorts.

Certainly when an owner is new they are going to want to experience all that DVC offers and that is what the program is all about. But many are very happy with SSR; as are nonSSR owners such as us.

Actually I'd think a less informed DVC owner such as those not on this or similar boards would be more likely to buy in to use at the other resorts, not less. I would agree with the idea of a new owner, I've addressed that idea in this and previous threads. It is my expectation that it'll take about 2 trips for an owner to get their new resort out of their system, maybe less for an experienced owner, maybe a little more for a total novice. But my prediction has been that the peak impact will begin about 2 years past when the majority of the points are sold. And it's after that honeymoon period that I think is the real issue.

 

[crisi]

I would disagree with crisi. While it may be true that every new resort has some affect on the system, if the demand is roughly the same as the previous resorts the affect is minimal overall. IMO, SSR is the only resort that has entered the system that is both large (many points) and where the membership as a whole are more likely to be vying at the 7 month window over the long haul.

Only if the resorts are all the same size. If demand is the same at a resort with 1000 rooms and a resort with 100 rooms, the resort with 100 rooms will fill up first. If the resort with 1000 rooms and the resort with 100 rooms both have 40% of their owners that want to stay somewhere different this year, one resort will throw 40 owners into the system at seven months and the other will throw 400 owners in at seven months. Now if the large resort has a smaller demand (as you believe SSR does, and I wouldn't argue the other way), it may throw even more users into the system at seven months while if the smaller resort has a loyal following (as I think we both suspect BCVs does), it will have an even small number in.

And honestly, it doesn't matter if the resorts built are small or large, if you want BCV and don't own there, any new member at any new resort - VAK, SSR, VCR, the Poly, Mexico, DVC-DCL, DVC-Steamboat - whatever they come up with - if those members want to stay at BCV as well the same year you want to, it means you have more competition. They could build a DVC with 40 units - and if some of those owners occationally want BCV, it makes BCV harder to get. Larger destination resorts will have less impact than larger non-destination resorts, small non-destination resorts will have less impact than small destination resorts, but when I ran the numbers, supply, not demand, was the critical factor in creating a shortage or surplus.

(I know SSR isn't 1000 rooms and no resort is a mere 100 rooms, it makes the example easy. I'm also saying one member = one member room night, and the reality is more complex than that).

 

[Dean]

Only if the resorts are all the same size. If demand is the same at a resort with 1000 rooms and a resort with 100 rooms, the resort with 100 rooms will fill up first.

I don't believe so. There would be proportionately more members at a larger resort than a smaller resort. I hear what you're saying that for example 10% of 100 is 10 and 10% of 1000 is 100 but due to the larger numbers at the larger resort it could easily be where the larger resort filled before the smaller one.

And honestly, it doesn't matter if the resorts built are small or large, if you want BCV and don't own there, any new member at any new resort - VAK, SSR, VCR, the Poly, Mexico, DVC-DCL, DVC-Steamboat - whatever they come up with - if those members want to stay at BCV as well the same year you want to, it means you have more competition. They could build a DVC with 40 units - and if some of those owners occationally want BCV, it makes BCV harder to get. Larger destination resorts will have less impact than larger non-destination resorts, small non-destination resorts will have less impact than small destination resorts, but when I ran the numbers, supply, not demand, was the critical factor in creating a shortage or surplus.

This I agree, but it does affect the chances at the 7 month window.

 

[crisi]

Throw some numbers at me Dean, I'm missing something and if you spell it out, I might get it....

 

[Dean]

Throw some numbers at me Dean, I'm missing something and if you spell it out, I might get it....

Truthfully I can see both sides, yours and mine but since you asked, I'll try. Say for example, if SSR had 1000 units and 52000 members compared to say BCV at 100 units and 5200 members. If you assume 90% will book before the 7 month window opens that leaves 10 units per week at BCV and 100 at SSR. That is what you are saying if I understand correctly. But even if 99% of each group book in the home resort window you could just as easily have that last unit open at the smaller resort as the larger one. For a high demand time at a sold out resort if one resort consistently is full during the home resort window while another is open consistently, by definition that open resort would have less demand since any given resort will have enough owners to fill it up for the year accounting for maint units. And the few that DVC owns above maint that are rented out wouldn't change the numbers at all other than reducing the "size" of the resort slightly

You're also going to have X number of weeks unavailable at any one time due to maint issues and due to the fact that the single day reservation system will orphan a few days her and there. That too should be the same percentage assuming equal demand.

But it really isn't working that way. You've got (for example) 98-100% of owners at BCV many weeks booking in the home resort window leaving only 0-2 units and say 60% of the SSR owners booking during the home resort window. And many of those other SSR owners/points will be vying for the 2 BVC units open. Of course if they're not successful they will fall back to SSR or possibly OKW actually making the numbers somewhat artificially look better for SSR than they are. Now some of those BCV will call 7 months out for something else while holding their BCV reservation. They will also be trying generally for one of the higher demand resorts on average and only give up what they hold if they are successful in securing a replacement. If they are successful they will give up their BCV reservation and some of those units will go to SSR owners on the wait list among others.

I do realize there are other factors that include that the BCV owner might reserve early because they know they have to and the SSR owner might not because they know they don't have to. But even then it comes back to the demand of the resort driving their decision to act early or take their chances. And I know that many of these resorts will not get to the 7 month time with availability, that again is a reflection of the demand of the resort and not necessarily the size. IMO, AKV will be the wild card or the definition depending on it's actual overall demand. If it's 7 month availability mirrors BCV, BVW and VWL I think the question would have been definitely answered as to the haves and have nots in terms of relative demand. The reverse is not necessarily true however. If AKV has more availability it could be because it has lower demand as some predict and/or because size really does matter in this debate as others predict.

Regardless, interesting to discuss and bat around.

 

[mizg21077]

Ok so I'm new to the boards and came across this thread...my family pursched BWV the fist year they traveled to Disney in 1999 or 2000...I have only stayed at DVC resorts since then and i love them all....I love BWV, and OKW, and VWL..SSR not my favorite but i had a great time staying there but their was constuction going on at the time so I would hope that with completed construction it would be as great as the others....My family bought DVC because they like the idea of the "home away from home" and because it cost them major $$$ that first year staying at the Disney Institute...i would asume that is why most people do too...I love the DVC resorts and never want to go back to staying in the other hotels like the Contempory where i stayed on my very first visit to disney when i was a teenager..I emjoy my privacy and the quiet a little too much...and thank you I can make my own bed.

Yeah only 28 more day

 

[BroganMc]

Truthfully I can see both sides, yours and mine but since you asked, I'll try. Say for example, if SSR had 1000 units and 52000 members compared to say BCV at 100 units and 5200 members. If you assume 90% will book before the 7 month window opens that leaves 10 units per week at BCV and 100 at SSR. That is what you are saying if I understand correctly. But even if 99% of each group book in the home resort window you could just as easily have that last unit open at the smaller resort as the larger one. For a high demand time at a sold out resort if one resort consistently is full during the home resort window while another is open consistently, by definition that open resort would have less demand since any given resort will have enough owners to fill it up for the year accounting for maint units. And the few that DVC owns above maint that are rented out wouldn't change the numbers at all other than reducing the "size" of the resort slightly.

Dean, the trouble with your math is that you get the basics of supply but then attach qualitative explanations for demand. You only can see that availability tends to be greater at the larger resorts (OKW & SSR) and less at the smaller resorts. Saying that the reason for that is because of owner satisfaction is introducing facts not in evidence, nor provable except by a survey of all owners reserving elsewhere.

If 100 is greater than 10, than after the 10 are filled 90 more are left available. Somehow your math keeps inflating that 90 to 360.

FWIW, I think AKV and SSR will have a lot in common with their affect on membership. But while AKV undergoes its awkward construction phase, SSR will be enjoying its post-construction settling in. More owners will be returning to SSR and developing attachments. More members will be giving AKV a shot and come away with bent noses from the construction woes. And more AKV owners will be spreading their wings at other resorts while waiting for AKV to finish.

What concerns me is that when the dust settles, that remoteness of AKV will chase away more of those owners who were looking for room occupancy breaks or because it was the best sale (or because it had 3 more years to the contract). Basically any reason beyond they love the savannah theme. In this, it is like HHI and VB. Smaller scale but larger number of owners.

I think AKV owners tired of the remoteness will look to SSR and OKW more often. Why? Because both resorts retain their quiet locale but are within walking distance of some non-resort stuff. Meanwhile BWV and BCV will be the "high octane" stays. VWL could take a sizeable hit as well since it is a peaceful resort close to MK. (That's a reason I think for pushing a big CRV resort sooner rather than later.)

Whic is my qualitative explanation of a future prediction which just leads to this:

If AKV has more availability it could be because it has lower demand as some predict and/or because size really does matter in this debate as others predict.

It's the old debate which came first: chicken or the egg? Without a survey of owners, it is pretty impossible to prove the reason behind any hypothesis.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I've been here since the BCV opening. I've seen the bashing at BCV, SSR, and now AKV.
I have never seen the severity of bashing at BCV or AKV that I've seen at SSR. Personally, I doubt I ever will.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with bashing a resort, nor do I believe SSR is bash worthy. I just simply have seen SSR take a beating like no other.

Some folks here like to use the word "remote" to describe AKV/AKL. I just don't see it that way.
If you need to use your car, whats an extra 90 seconds? In fact, AK is very close by car. Additionally, AKL/AKV would look a bit silly with a backdrop of Spaceship Earth.

MG

 

[dvc-NE]

Now what would the Dis become without 100 threads about why my home resort is better than yours

Exactly! Or why my baseball team in the AL East is better than yours! Just kidding, of course.

 

[BroganMc]

Some folks here like to use the word "remote" to describe AKV/AKL. I just don't see it that way.
If you need to use your car, whats an extra 90 seconds?

I think you misunderstand my use of the word "remote". Yes, anything on Disney property is close by car. (You only need to drive Disney roads to go to Disney destinations. The gas is cheaper, roads in better shape, and fewer nutball non-Disney drivers to run you off the road. Driving from Marriott on I Drive to Disney via I-4 every day gives one a perspective on these things.)

But sometimes you'd like to leave your room and just walk somewhere. At AKL/AKV that somewhere is (a) to the pool, (b) to the lobby, (c) to the savannah overlook, or (d) to the African restaurants. C is no great option since you have that from your room already. D can get tiresome if you've had the same cuisine 2-3 meals in a row.

Now at OKW, you have A, B, a Key West style of C & D, and then (e) walk to DTD shopping district, (f) walk to DTD restaurants, (g) walk to DTD movie theatre, (h) walk to DTD nightclubs, (i) walk to DTD indoor theme park, (j) walk to SSR spa, restaurant and pools.

At SSR you get the same but with shorter walks. BCV & BWV you substitute E-J for Boardwalk, Beach Club, EPCOT and MGM amenities. VWL you get the Fort Wilderness amenities though admittedly this resort is less walkable than any other.

Why would you want to go somewhere without the car? Maybe you don't care to drive or don't have a car. Maybe you don't fancy hunting for a parking space. Maybe you left the keys in the room. Maybe you don't care to wait for a bus and hope for a seat. Maybe you just want to go out for a stroll and see where your legs will take you.

FWIW, I find my Marriott resorts also feel remote for this reason. There's nothing nearby I can walk to so I'm constantly hopping in the van and going out for the day. Once committed to driving, I find myself staying out longer and having less of a leisurely time at the home resort. Granted the fact that its near impossible to find a decent parking spot on my return has a lot to do with it. Now at SSR, I found myself abandoning my car for a week and just going places on a whim by foot.

 

[Dean]

Dean, the trouble with your math is that you get the basics of supply but then attach qualitative explanations for demand. You only can see that availability tends to be greater at the larger resorts (OKW & SSR) and less at the smaller resorts. Saying that the reason for that is because of owner satisfaction is introducing facts not in evidence, nor provable except by a survey of all owners reserving elsewhere.

So we have agreement that SSR has more availability than certain other resorts, that's at least a start. Since I don't buy that bigger means automatically more availability, what other explanation would you offer.

I think AKV owners tired of the remoteness will look to SSR and OKW more often. Why? Because both resorts retain their quiet locale but are within walking distance of some non-resort stuff. Meanwhile BWV and BCV will be the "high octane" stays. VWL could take a sizeable hit as well since it is a peaceful resort close to MK. (That's a reason I think for pushing a big CRV resort sooner rather than later.)

Whic is my qualitative explanation of a future prediction which just leads to this:



It's the old debate which came first: chicken or the egg? Without a survey of owners, it is pretty impossible to prove the reason behind any hypothesis.

I suspect your right but for the wrong reasons. Others that want a change (AKV, VB, HH for example) probably will stay at SSR and OKW more than others simply because they're available. The actual information to prove this to you and other doubters really isn't a survey but ongoing occupancy and past hx of where members actually stayed compared to their home resort. Years ago when DVC was required to publish occupancy, there was quite a bit of difference between OKW and BWV, the only on property DVC resorts at the time.

I don't see AKV as being remote but can see how others might feel that way. But then we always have a car and almost always drive to all parks except MK. Not liking AKV certainly isn't bashing it but it has been my prediction that it will be better received than some think, time will tell.

 

[BroganMc]

So we have agreement that SSR has more availability than certain other resorts, that's at least a start. Since I don't buy that bigger means automatically more availability, what other explanation would you offer.

That would be like discounting the day is bright because the sun shines. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation is usually correct. The trouble is you keep wanting to add assumptions into your logic and arbitrarily dismissing facts.

I suspect your right but for the wrong reasons. Others that want a change (AKV, VB, HH for example) probably will stay at SSR and OKW more than others simply because they're available.

Oh I agree availability has a lot to do with why AKV members will be staying at SSR & OKW more than BWV & BCV. That's a given to me simply because the math shows more rooms at one resort over another. More AKV owners probably also will see SSR & OKW as an upgrade compared to BCV & BWV owners who see it as a downgrade simply because of the walkable amenities. (AKV owners will be comparing to what they have at home, just as BCV & BWV owners do.)

Years ago when DVC was required to publish occupancy, there was quite a bit of difference between OKW and BWV, the only on property DVC resorts at the time.

Great but can we see the actual numbers instead of the interpretation. Since you dismiss the idea of raw numbers having anything to do with availability, I question your interpretation of those numbers.

After all, are we talking things such as 95% vs. 85% of ROOMS FILLED or 95% vs. 85% of OWNERS RESERVING ROOMS. There's a big difference between the two numbers.

I don't see AKV as being remote but can see how others might feel that way.

If one is going to always use a car to get around then no resort is remote. In fact, those resorts which allow for nearby parking are more preferable because it means even shorter walks to the car.

 

[gkrykewy]

Why would you want to go somewhere without the car? Maybe you don't care to drive or don't have a car.

FWIW, we don't own a car and have zero interest in driving while at WDW - it's the main reason that on-property stays have always been a must for us. At the same time, we don't find AKL to be problematically remote - it's always been our favorite resort, and it's what compelled us to buy DVC.

As an urban planner, I'd love for more of WDW to be walkable, but I console myself with the thought that the destinations themselves are at least walkable, even if they are separated by road configurations and distances that preclude walking.

BCV and BWV are uniquely connected, but SSR, for example, is only marginally more 'walkable' in terms of connectivity than AKV. It's a fairly enormous walking distance from one side of the resort to the other, let alone to DTD. It's at least multimodal in that it has boat access, however.

AKL is one resort where the theming greatly (and uniquely) benefits from comparative isolation, and the theming is its main selling point.