Just back and my feelings on Saratoga Springs

[Sammie]

As stated BWV was build at the same time as BW Inn so no prior loyalty or liking was present there.

Definitely VWL and BCV, for in my opinion, no way either of those could stand alone without the attraction of the resort it is attached to. That is the draw.

 

[BroganMc]

As stated BWV was build at the same time as BW Inn so no prior loyalty or liking was present there.

Definitely VWL and BCV, for in my opinion, no way either of those could stand alone without the attraction of the resort it is attached to. That is the draw.

Yes. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the order or resorts:

1991 - OKW (DVC begins)
1995 - VB (offsite expansion)
1996 - HHI (offsite expansion) and BWV/BWI (onsite expansion with the Boardwalk common area to draw nonpark guests)
2000 - VWL (add-on to existing hotel)
2002 - BCV (add-on to existing hotel)
2004 - SSR (onsite expansion to existing DTD common area drawing nonpark guests)
2007 - AKV (add-on to existing hotel)

So the history reflects the original forays into standalone resorts with multiple locations. But VB and HHI did not prove as popular as necessary to grow the program like the bigger timeshare companies (i.e. Marriott, etc.). People wanted to buy and stay in DisneyWorld. So when the company planned the expansion of the area between EPCOT and MGM, they intentionally built it as half hotel and half DVC. Meanwhile it was developed as well with several other hotels, including non-Disney managed hotels, all with conference centers. Thus making the Boardwalk area a big conference draw.

Further expansion was in the more conservative existing hotel add-ons to capitalize on the resort's popularity and theme. But SSR was a bit like BWV and OKW in development style. And this is the one that managed to make the program grow in popularity and membership. Now we're back to a hotel add-on, but not a conservative one like the early part of this decade. Disney seems to be trying to capture both the sentiments of existing location loyalty and large timeshare resort.

 

[mwmuntz]

Good theory - though BWV was built integral to the resort and didn't have the "brand loyalty" to sell the resort - like VWL or BCV or AKV does.

Hmmm. Learn something new every day. I thought first came BWI, then BWV. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm kind of one of the new SSR folks who are buying into the DVC concept. We toured BWV about 7 years ago & loved it. Unfortunately, we could not afford DVC at the time, but it was something that we knew we wanted to do someday. We never stayed at a DVC resort or it's "sister" hotel. When we finally bought in last month, I just called DVC. Easiest sale ever for my guide (Humberto). The conversation went something like this:

Me: I'd like to buy 200 points.
Humberto: We are selling SSR right now.
Me: OK. That's fine.
Humberto: Will you be financing?
...

I didn't want the hassle of resale (ROFR, turnaround time), and I didn't know about the waitlist at the time, so I assumed that it was my only choice. But honestly, had I known, I probably would have still done everything the same way. I have no prior experience or loyalty to any particular resort. I bought in knowing that I will be staying at SSR most of the time, and I am fine with that. I also liked the longer contract and the current low MF's. I also bought into DVC with the assumption that I would be able to book another resort every so often. Key word - every so often, not all the time. I'd like to eventually try them all, and if I find one I particularly love, I might be tempted to buy an add-on there. Despite some very vocal critics of SSR, the more I read about the resort itself, the more excited I am that it is my home resort. I booked my first DVC trip for September at SSR. I didn't even consider another resort when I booked because I wanted to check out "home" first.

 

[mwmuntz]

As stated BWV was build at the same time as BW Inn so no prior loyalty or liking was present there.

Definitely VWL and BCV, for in my opinion, no way either of those could stand alone without the attraction of the resort it is attached to. That is the draw.

True, I understand now that BWI wasn't around for years prior to BWV, like WL or BCI were, but you probably still had a good number of BWI guests buying into BWV. A 2, 3 or 5 night stay will sell a resort a lot better than a 30 minute tour. That might explain some of the "upgrades to SSR" that Disney is offering some of it's hotel guests.

I'm just glad that Disney offers all of these choices!

 

[Snookies]

Yes. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the order or resorts:

1991 - OKW (DVC begins)
1995 - VB (offsite expansion)
1996 - HHI (offsite expansion) and BWV/BWI (onsite expansion with the Boardwalk common area to draw nonpark guests)
2000 - VWL (add-on to existing hotel)
2002 - BCV (add-on to existing hotel)
2004 - SSR (onsite expansion to existing DTD common area drawing nonpark guests)
2007 - AKV (add-on to existing hotel)

So the history reflects the original forays into standalone resorts with multiple locations. But VB and HHI did not prove as popular as necessary to grow the program like the bigger timeshare companies (i.e. Marriott, etc.). People wanted to buy and stay in DisneyWorld. So when the company planned the expansion of the area between EPCOT and MGM, they intentionally built it as half hotel and half DVC. Meanwhile it was developed as well with several other hotels, including non-Disney managed hotels, all with conference centers. Thus making the Boardwalk area a big conference draw.

Further expansion was in the more conservative existing hotel add-ons to capitalize on the resort's popularity and theme. But SSR was a bit like BWV and OKW in development style. And this is the one that managed to make the program grow in popularity and membership. Now we're back to a hotel add-on, but not a conservative one like the early part of this decade. Disney seems to be trying to capture both the sentiments of existing location loyalty and large timeshare resort.

In reference to the non-Disney owned and managed hotels in the Epcot / MGM area (i.e., the Swan and Dolphin), I read some time ago that those hotels arose from a deal Michael Eisner struck with Lawrence Tisch before the WDW hotel building boom began. It was suggested that Eisner later regretted that deal but could not renege on the agreement; hence the location of the Swan / Dolphin on Disney property. Given the history, I think it is interesting that WDW is now inviting Four Seasons onto the property as a partner and wonder if management will regret this move years from now.

 

[Snookies]

In reference to the non-Disney owned and managed hotels in the Epcot / MGM area (i.e., the Swan and Dolphin), I read some time ago that those hotels arose from a deal Michael Eisner struck with Lawrence Tisch before the WDW hotel building boom began. It was suggested that Eisner later regretted that deal but could not renege on the agreement; hence the location of the Swan / Dolphin on Disney property. Given the history, I think it is interesting that WDW is now inviting Four Seasons onto the property as a partner and wonder if management will regret this move years from now.

My description of the Swan / Dolphin's history is a little bit "off." If anyone is interested in the actual history of why these hotels are on Disney Property, a brief version of the story is at Jim Hill Media.