Just a thought

[byoung]

The flexibility and variety of DVC is why a lot of us buy. If it is taken away I think membership might decrease.

 

[Dean]

The flexibility and variety of DVC is why a lot of us buy. If it is taken away I think membership might decrease.

I think DVC could have taken many different approaches, including those with a lot less flexibility, and still been just as successful. Possibly even more so because they could have offered units for less with a MUCH lower maint fee. I know many look at the way it is now and try to convince themselves they wouldn't have bought in other situations but for on property at WDW and with the name Disney behind it, I suspect most probably would. And I know people that would have been more likely to buy in other situations. I suspect DVC could take away a lot of the flexibility and few would sell. You can bet they'd complain a lot, but in the end, most would continue on.

 

[Granny]

It really wasn't until this year, that reports of "it's getting harder to book" the smaller resorts became so frequent. Members were used to calling only a few months in advance and still getting what they wanted when they wanted it. I can remember when it was only tough to get the week between Christmas and New Year's!

I know that when the size of SSR was announced, this very pattern and "problem" was predicted by some on these boards. I specifically seem to remember Crisi postulating this, and many took it to be an "attack" on SSR's value or appeal. As you point out, and I agree, just by sheer size SSR will have an impact on the other DVC resorts.

But I do think DIsney will continue to allow reserving at other DVC resorts besides one's home resort. I imagine they might catch some heat from DVC owners who aren't able to book short lead time (less than 9 months out) vacations and the most I ever see them doing is widening the home booking advantage to address that.

Or they could narrow it to one month so that they can bolster their assertion that new DVC owners at XXX Villas Resort in the future will still be able to "freely" stay at other DVC resorts.

 

[thelobstershanty]

I is not just that new members buy SSR(or other mega DVC) "EXPECTING" to stay at one of the other DVC resorts, it has more to do that it was a HUGE selling point during the tour. Not saying that this is contract, I am saying it obviously helps sell points and if they take it away...

This is definitly the truth. We just returned from SSR. We were at the main pool everyday for 8 days. Where we sat everyday, was right between the bathrooms, the pool bar and the window where pool floats and bike rentals are available. This location also happened to be precisely where the DVC guides brought prospective buyers to observe the main pool. We stayed at the main pool on an average of 2.5 hours per day. We never saw less than 12-15 DVC guides coming through with prospective buyers. Because we were right there we could not help but hear their sales pitch. They ALL emphasized the ability to easily stay at all the DVC resorts with no problem. They especially stressed the ability to stay at BCV, BWV & VWL with no problem. The guides did not state this until the prospective buyers asked about these resorts and then the answer was always the same.
We found it very eye opening, to say the least.

 

[Simba's Mom]

It really wasn't until this year, that reports of "it's getting harder to book" the smaller resorts became so frequent. Members were used to calling only a few months in advance and still getting what they wanted when they wanted it. I can remember when it was only tough to get the week between Christmas and New Year's!


Didn't they used to have a lottery or something during that time because it was so hard to book? I don't know exactly how it worked, but it seems someone told me about it once-that in the early/mid 90s (maybe it was only for a year or two) there was some type of lottery in booking the most difficult time. How did that work? Or am I just imagining that someone told me there was one?

 

[thelobstershanty]

Or they could narrow it to one month so that they can bolster their assertion that new DVC owners at XXX Villas Resort in the future will still be able to "freely" stay at other DVC resorts.

If they do this, they would have to make all annual dues the same for all onsite WDW DVC resorts. Without doing this, I think a major uproar would happen. And in all fairness, why should members pay higher annual dues, if it provides no additional home booking advantage?

 

[thelobstershanty]

With all the people on the boards asking about getting GV's at OKW when they do not own there and folks wanting to book the other resorts when they own at SSR, do you think the time is coming when DVC will do away with booking outside your home resort? .....

We would be thrilled if DVC did this. We enjoy staying at all the DVC resorts but our home resort is our favorite and why we bought there. We would be very happy staying solely at our home resort.

 

[DaddyBrady]

Fascinating thread....

So, I'll keep going back to the legal agreements that define what "they" can do. SSR is the first resort, as I understand it, to be DVC roman numeral II, with the different expiration date. Has anyone ever compared the POS for the DVC I versus DVC II? Are there other differences?

Administratively it would make sense to keep things the same among all resorts (less confusion at MS), but the point made somewhere in this thread about different maintenance fees is important to note: we're not all members of a single community, and we're not necessarily controlled by the same legal agreements.

In a different vein, however, there isn't some nefarious DVC devil trying to make our lives difficult. The reality, as I see it, is that Disney overbuilt hotels. They also overbuilt parks. They need to get people on property, spending money in restaurants and on merchandise. DVC is a particularly (cost) effective way to do this. If we look at every "policy" in that light, it may help to make sense of the present and predict the future.

 

[RobDoc]

Didn't they used to have a lottery or something during that time because it was so hard to book? I don't know exactly how it worked, but it seems someone told me about it once-that in the early/mid 90s (maybe it was only for a year or two) there was some type of lottery in booking the most difficult time. How did that work? Or am I just imagining that someone told me there was one?

There was a "Special Seasons Priority List" that addressed the Christmas - New Years timeframe. They even used a lottery for the "Y2K" period in anticipation of booking difficulties. The program was discontinued because the resorts were never filled using the list- even for Y2K.

MS can always re-institute that program should the need arise, but based on past performance, that won't likely be needed.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Yes, Doc, and we were lucky to get into that Y2K lottery, only to have it opened up later on.

 

[pouncingpluto]

The flexibility and variety of DVC is why a lot of us buy. If it is taken away I think membership might decrease.

But membership *can't* decrease. The points that are sold are sold. And DVC won't buy them back on ROFR if there isn't a market to resell them.

 

[bpmorley]

That was a huge reason we bought. Not that we don't like SSR. But I don't think we'd want to go there 2 maybe 3 times a year. If they were to stop allowing us to use the other DVC resort, we'd probably sell

 

[thelobstershanty]

That was a huge reason we bought. Not that we don't like SSR. But I don't think we'd want to go there 2 maybe 3 times a year. If they were to stop allowing us to use the other DVC resort, we'd probably sell

No flames intended, but I think that is the difference with new SSR members and DVC members that bought when DVC first started. Not all, but a very large % of DVC members that bought in the early days of DVC bought at a resort that they would be happy to spend every WDW trip at and then also had the added plus of trading out for the non WDW trips.
This does not seem to be that way a large % of SSR owners are regarding their membership. I am, in no way, saying this against SSR owners--your statement is excatly the misconception the DVC guides are pushing. We were very surprised to hear this spiel over and over again by DVC guides, while we were at the SSR main pool, as recently as Tuesday.
Not that the DVC guides are outright lying but they definitely make it sound like getting into the smaller DVC park resorts is a breeze. This is not true at the present and will get more difficult as the number of DVC members continues to grow.

 

[Dean]

If they do this, they would have to make all annual dues the same for all onsite WDW DVC resorts. Without doing this, I think a major uproar would happen. And in all fairness, why should members pay higher annual dues, if it provides no additional home booking advantage?

I disagree. Even if they removed the home resort priority totally, which they could do if they followed the right steps, each resort would have to pay it's own way. The fact that one person owns at a higher demand resort and pays higher dues but other can easily book in makes NO difference to the dues structure.

So, I'll keep going back to the legal agreements that define what "they" can do. SSR is the first resort, as I understand it, to be DVC roman numeral II, with the different expiration date. Has anyone ever compared the POS for the DVC I versus DVC II? Are there other differences?

There is no DVC I and DVC II, only different expiration dates. Legally each is a separate resort. By rule, each is a member of the DVC with the same rights as everyone else. Some resort just go away faster than others. They can limit banking, borrowing, even the home priority window and they could even exclude a resort from the club in certain circumstances. But the rules for the club will be he same for all members.

 

[RobDoc]

If they do this, they would have to make all annual dues the same for all onsite WDW DVC resorts. Without doing this, I think a major uproar would happen. And in all fairness, why should members pay higher annual dues, if it provides no additional home booking advantage?

Annual dues are based on the anticpated costs of running a specific resort and not on any other factors. The "booking advantage" can be reduced to 11 months and 10 months without any input from members. The POS is very clear in that regard. It could also be changed to 11 months and 1 month. Members are guaranteed at least a 1 month Home Resort reservation priority. Presently that priority is set at 7 months, but can be changed without input by the membership.

So, I'll keep going back to the legal agreements that define what "they" can do. SSR is the first resort, as I understand it, to be DVC roman numeral II, with the different expiration date. Has anyone ever compared the POS for the DVC I versus DVC II? Are there other differences?

The "legal agreements" make no distinction like "DVC I" and "DVC II". There are no differences in the POS regrading the DVC program - other than the expiration date of individual resorts.

I agree with Dean's assessment of the legal description of the DVC program. Each resort would be treated differently, as described in the POS, if the Home Resort Priority was reduced to 11 months/10 months (as allowed in the POS).

 

[thelobstershanty]

Annual dues are based on the anticpated costs of running a specific resort and not on any other factors. The "booking advantage" can be reduced to 11 months and 10 months without any input from members. The POS is very clear in that regard. It could also be changed to 11 months and 1 month. Members are guaranteed at least a 1 month Home Resort reservation priority. Presently that priority is set at 7 months, but can be changed without input by the membership.



The "legal agreements" make no distinction like "DVC I" and "DVC II". There are no differences in the POS regrading the DVC program - other than the expiration date of individual resorts.

I agree with Dean's assessment of the legal description of the DVC program. Each resort would be treated differently, as described in the POS, if the Home Resort Priority was reduced to 11 months/10 months (as allowed in the POS).

I do not know how it happened, but the second quote in your post---that was identified as mine--was NOT my post. It is DaddyBrady's post. The quote should be given the proper due, and that belongs to DaddyBrady.

I completely understand how the annual dues are allocated. But still feel that a major uproar would occur, if the described scenario were to happen. I have read many comments, on many Disney related boards--where members have expressed concern over the annual dues issue; for things a lot less important than eliminating booking at non DVC home resorts.

 

[RobDoc]

... I completely understand how the annual dues are allocated. But still feel that a major uproar would occur, if the described scenario were to happen. I have read many comments, on many Disney related boards--where members have expressed concern over the annual dues issue; for things a lot less important than eliminating booking at non DVC home resorts.

If you understand how the annual fees are allocated, then you should understand the possibilities for owners at any resort to replace DVC as management and the consequences that would result from that decision.

If owners at any DVC resort decided to remove DVC as the managing entity, they would effectively remove themselves from any ability to reserve other than their home resort. The POS is clear regarding that responsibility. That ability could be changed within the current DVC program, but would disappear completely with a change in management by owners at any of the DVC resorts.

 

[Dean]

I completely understand how the annual dues are allocated. But still feel that a major uproar would occur, if the described scenario were to happen. I have read many comments, on many Disney related boards--where members have expressed concern over the annual dues issue; for things a lot less important than eliminating booking at non DVC home resorts.

LOL. I doubt members would say much to DVC if they made the home booking priority 11/10, maybe if they made it 11/4 or 11/1 they'd complain a little more. I don't see any change happening as I don't see it as a problem, just a reality. If they did change it, it'd be a new reality and most of us would simply adjust. I suspect there'd be quite a buzz on the boards, but not much to DVC as is usually the case (and that's likely not a bad thing). I suspect the vast majority of any complaints would be from those that didn't know or understand any change and missed or had difficulty with their reservation due to the change.

What would cause a lot of complaints, including successful legal ones, would be if DVC tried to even out the dues. They COULD have set it up that way originally but they didn't. There are other points systems do operate where the cost per point is the same for all. I'll be there in Sept and December on an exchange (1 BR BW & 2 BR SSR) at a fraction of the cost I'd be out using points. Those with the attitude you can't stay at my resort without paying the same fees must really be loving that.

 

[thelobstershanty]

It is interesting how the written word on an internet board can get misinterpreted with even statements being quoted to the wrong poster.
I never said anything regarding changing the management of DVC. The only thing I said was that I feel there would be quite a bit of dissatisfaction on the part of the owners if the described scenairo were to happen. No mention of changing mgmt etc. That is all I said and that is all I meant to say.

Dean, we just made reservations at VWL for 10 nights over NYE. We could not get all the nights on points so are paying cash for 3 nights. I can not say our cash nights are at a fraction of the price of paying points, though. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
I am not one with the attitude "you can't stay at my resort without paying the same fees". Again a misinterpretation of something that was never stated.

 

[Mickey Fliers]

Thelobstershanty- In Doc's post, I am seeing that second quote being DaddyBradys. Is your computer not showing that? Weird.

Interesting conversation. I enjoy reading the dialogue.