Just out - 2005 rack rates, kinda interesting...

Originally posted by kweaver
I find it interesting that OKW and SSR have the exact same rack rates, while there is a significant difference when you are staying on points.

You really have to consider DVC and Disney resort pricing as two seperate entitites. The total number of points a resort has to sell is figured out based on what it actually costs to build the resort and also make a profit. They then divide up the points to make reservations. I know others disagree, but the number of points needed to make a reservation doesn't really have much to do with whether DVC thinks resort "A" is in a better location than resort "B". Selling the points is how Disney made their money and using points for making reservations is why we buy them.

(All figures are for example only -- not actual).

Now, WDW can put whatever price they want on different resorts and then can change them up (or down) whenever they want to. If Pop Century suddenly became wildly popular because Brad Pitt said it was his favorite resort, they could start charging $400 a night -- even though the GF is a clearly a nicer property.

When OKW opened they determined that they would sell "X" number of points at "Y" dollars to come up with a 50% profit over their construction costs. When BWV opened they had to decide whether they would sell more points at a lower price or fewer points at a higher price to cover the increased costs of building BWV. Because all the resort points are the same price -- they did a combination of raising the price a little and selling more points. If you sell more points, it takes more points per room. The same calculations were done with every DVC resort. DVC has to decide going into the sale of each resort what price they need to hit. The reservation schedule is set before sales begin -- they can't create more points once the resort starts to sell and they can only raise the price per point to levels that the market will bear.
 
We are new DVC members as of last month, so please bear with me. I checked out Mary's site and it lists the summer months at Saratoga (our home resort) as Value Season. This is when we travel because I am a teacher - so I checked out my point chart for next summer (our first trip home), and this time period is listed as Magic Season, which requires the second highest amount of points.

As a DVC member I have to use more points = more cost, but if I paid cash, I get it for cheaper as it's Value Season - this means that we can't do a direct comparison because rack rates for Value Season are lower.

What's the deal? Am I missing something? Tiger
 
Originally posted by KNWVIKING
***"BCV and BWV are still the most expensive of the DVC WDW resorts."***

In addition to what Pam said, the cost of operating SAB affects the pricing structure at Y&B and BCV. I think location,location,location also affect BWV.

This is a definite. According to friends that work Disney really was caught unawares of the cost of the pool. A huge cost is insurance and lifegaurds due to the fact they have to be water park certified. Which is why you will never see another one built.
 
Originally posted by Tiger926
We are new DVC members as of last month, so please bear with me. I checked out Mary's site and it lists the summer months at Saratoga (our home resort) as Value Season. This is when we travel because I am a teacher - so I checked out my point chart for next summer (our first trip home), and this time period is listed as Magic Season, which requires the second highest amount of points.

As a DVC member I have to use more points = more cost, but if I paid cash, I get it for cheaper as it's Value Season - this means that we can't do a direct comparison because rack rates for Value Season are lower.

What's the deal? Am I missing something? Tiger

Disney determines value season for cash renting of rooms. DVC determines the points needed and at times they are not similar. Both are based on occupany levels of past time periods. DVC is busy during the summer and deluxe and home away from home cash rentals are not as busy. Therefore the difference.
 

The total number of points a resort has to sell is figured out based on what it actually costs to build the resort and also make a profit.

DVC is not allowed to make a profit.
 
Originally posted by lenshanem

BCV and BWV are still the most expensive of the DVC WDW resorts. I find this interesting cause in my mind VWL is worth every penny as BCV. But this was one of the factors into our decision to buy BCV over VWL when we had the choice. Sometimes, though I wish we would have gone with our gut and bought VWL instead. I love that place!

I couldn't agree more!!! Can't I just own at ALL of them?!!!! I think I need to go "home" SOON!!!!

:wave:

Beca
 
It is interesting to see that the studio at the VWL cost even more than a courtyard view room at the hotel side. Personally, I would rather stay on the hotel side with a courtyard view, or book a woods view and take a chance for an upgrade to the concierge level by paying a little extra at check-in. Maybe it is just me.

I love the Wilderness Lodge 2-br that we stayed in and it is definitely our favorite DVC resort. However, I would pick the hotel room side over the studio given the cash price differential. Does a kitchenette mean that much to people, or is the demand that high for a studio that Disney decides to bump its rack rate by so much?
 
Disney Development Company can and does make a profit. That is who builds and sells the DVC resorts. DVC is our operating association and they are restricted by Florida laws regarding what they charge, reserve and the like. They can not make a profit.

OKW points were cheaper becuase it was their first venture into fractional ownership (timeshare) and they made it very attractive. It was also over a decade ago so construction costs were much less. Point costs have risen at about the same rate (5.2% average each year) as resort rack rates (5.3%) have over the years. Only our operating costs have risen less rapidly over the life of OKW (3.0%), probably largely beacuse of the change to less frequent housekeeping.

OKW has a built in long term pricing advantage that goes with being the first.
 
To go along with Jim's excellent explanation....the "profit" I referred to is the profit for building and selling the resorts. I should have used Disney Vacation Development not DVC to be technically correct. The amount of points is set when the resort is developed. That is the only opportunity Disney has to make back their construction costs and their profit. They could make each unit worth 4 points and sell them for $100,000 each or they could make each unit worth 200 points and sell them at $95 each -- once the number of points is set, they can only increase profit by raising the per point price.
 
And, if you want to see some really staggering numbers, figure out how much revenue a resort will generate for DVD.

At Saratoga Springs, each building has 2 GVs and 44 2Bs. With the help of Caskbill's planner, one can quickly discover that a Grand Villa for 365 days represents 32668 points, while a 2B represents 15107 points.

Multiply this by the number of rooms per building above and you get 664,708 points per building.

With 18 buildings now in the total resort development, all of SSR equates to about 13,140,792 points.

At $95 per point, revenues generated by SSR would be in the neighborhood of $1.2 BILLION dollars.

Note that I'm not taking into account things like the number of points that DVC retains, points sold for less than $95, or even the manner in which DVC allocates points for the lockout units.

Still, you get the gist. :)

This is where DVD makes most of their money--upward of $1 billion in revenues on a resort that cost a fraction of that to develop. DVC does keep a portion of the points which they use to rent out rooms on a cash basis. But other than that, DVC is basically a non-profit when it comes to operating the resorts, Member Services and so forth.
 
quote:The total number of points a resort has to sell is figured out based on what it actually costs to build the resort and also make a profit.

Originally posted by manning
DVC is not allowed to make a profit.

I think the poster was referring to the fact that DVD prices the sale of points to cover cost of construction, marketing the points, etc. plus profit to the company on these development and marketing activities, not that DVC would make a profit through its management of DVC operations (although they are guaranteed a certain percentage over the actual cost of operation; I think this is identified in the annual budget).

Ralph
 
Originally posted by kweaver
I find it interesting that OKW and SSR have the exact same rack rates, while there is a significant difference when you are staying on points.
They charge more because they can, plain and simple. With SSR being so large when finished, it will make the 11 month window paramount for all except OKW to a certain extent and SSR. BWV, BCV and VWL in particular will be impossible to get if you don't own there. It will also relagate the HH and VB owners to OKW and SSR almost exclusively, IMO.
 
Originally posted by Dean
They charge more because they can, plain and simple. With SSR being so large when finished, it will make the 11 month window paramount for all except OKW to a certain extent and SSR. BWV, BCV and VWL in particular will be impossible to get if you don't own there. It will also relagate the HH and VB owners to OKW and SSR almost exclusively, IMO.

Dean, I am curious what to you base this on?

With BWV, BCV, and VWL already sold out getting into them at the 7 month window should not change unless you are basing this on the fact that SSR will put more people into the system. I agree that at certain times of the year getting something at certain resorts might be harder at 7 months due to more people trying for the same thing. But I don't think it will be impossible to stay there. Anymore than it will be for those wanting to stay at HH and Vero that don't own there.

If BCV does not clean up it's act, literally, I am not sure I would want to book it anyway regardless of the pool.
 
Originally posted by Sammie
Dean, I am curious what to you base this on?

With BWV, BCV, and VWL already sold out getting into them at the 7 month window should not change unless you are basing this on the fact that SSR will put more people into the system. I agree that at certain times of the year getting something at certain resorts might be harder at 7 months due to more people trying for the same thing. But I don't think it will be impossible to stay there. Anymore than it will be for those wanting to stay at HH and Vero that don't own there.

If BCV does not clean up it's act, literally, I am not sure I would want to book it anyway regardless of the pool.
Well, here is the thinking. You can agree or disagree. There are a certain percent of people that own at OKW and will own at SSR that have intention of staying other places most trips. This happens at all the resorts but disproportionately at those two, IMO. The combined number of points at OKW and SSR will outweight the number of members at all the other resorts combined, by far. When the 7 month window opens up, ALL those that want a different resort will start calling. On day 1, a certain % of people will get what they want. On day 2, a different group will be successful with some overlap. By the time you get to the end of 5-7 days, only a very small percent will be able to get everything they want (need) at the smaller and more in demand resorts. I'd estimate only about 5% overall, or even less, will be successful initially with it increasing to maybe 10% with the wait list. For high demand times, it will be even worse.

HH has the same situation I describe above for summer already. If they build another resort of a similar pattern, say EP, the pressure will be even worse still. The only ways around this are to either change the rules so that people have a better chance at least part of the time or to build more "in demand" resorts. But it's take a lot of units to cover this issue, 200-300 at Contempary wouldn't do it by itself. What rules might help this. One would be to allow a member priority once they've booked one day. Another would be to have a lottery or rotating schedule. A third might be to reduce the home resort priority from 4 months to say only 1 month. There may be others I'm not thinking of right now.
 
It is not necessary for anything to be "disproportionate" in order for Dean's point to be valid. The 800+ units of SSR represent very roughly a 60% increase in membership at WDW DVC resorts.

So even if the proportion of SSR members seeking to stay at (for example) VWL on a particular date is the same as the proportion of OKW, BWV and BCV members, it would still mean a 60% increase in attempts to reserve at 7 months the small number of rooms not already taken by VWL members. That's a significant change.

Though it's not likely to be as bad as getting breakfast reservations at Cinderellas castle, it would make sense for DVC to think about sensible ways to give all members a fair shot at popular reservations.
 
Dean, thanks for the explanation.

I guess I can see the reasoning if you agree that a large percentage of OKW and SSR members will want to stay elsewhere, but I guess since I don't agree with, that is why I was not following your reasoning.

We love OKW and in fact it's my Dad favorite resort, he hates staying elsewhere. The BW does not appeal to us at all, we do not like the parking situation there and lately service at BCV has not been up to par and the pool situation at WLV keeps us away from there.

We will be staying at SSR later this summer but the previews and photos are enough to make me want to stay there and not leave.

Since we will never be able to get the actual numbers as to how many members do book elsewhere at 7 months vs. their Home Resort we won't know for sure.

I do know that with the increase in discussion of HH over the last few years here on the boards, we are glad we have points there also.
 
Originally posted by Sammie
Dean, thanks for the explanation.

I guess I can see the reasoning if you agree that a large percentage of OKW and SSR members will want to stay elsewhere, but I guess since I don't agree with, that is why I was not following your reasoning.

We love OKW and in fact it's my Dad favorite resort, he hates staying elsewhere. The BW does not appeal to us at all, we do not like the parking situation there and lately service at BCV has not been up to par and the pool situation at WLV keeps us away from there.

We will be staying at SSR later this summer but the previews and photos are enough to make me want to stay there and not leave.

Since we will never be able to get the actual numbers as to how many members do book elsewhere at 7 months vs. their Home Resort we won't know for sure.

I do know that with the increase in discussion of HH over the last few years here on the boards, we are glad we have points there also.
There is no question there are members that own at every resort that plan on staying elsewhere most or all of the time. Some own at BWV and stay mostly at OKW. Some bought where they wanted when they made the decision and newer resorts have been added so their preferences would have changed. This item will affect OKW most since it was first and is large. Still I think it's pretty simple to see that a larger percentage of owners at OKW and SSR will trade over time than at the other resorts. Many bought OKW for that reason and many have and will buy SSR for that reason as well as the fact it's the only game in town resale. But as erikthewise points out, even if the same percentage exchange for other resorts as the entire club, it will put tremendous pressure on the system.

To be honest, I prefer OKW, but overall I think OKW owners trade to other DVC resorts more than many other DVC members do. HH and VB might trade as much or more.
 















New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top