Right, but that's the whole idea. Since they grandfather in all contracts prior and in process, the extra 25 points should be part of the initial plan for those who would be affected by the change. There's no reason for anyone to buy extra points for the perks unless they were caught entirely unaware of the change. And, in that case, the perks weren't part of their purchase decision anyway.
I think there's a good chance the option will not remain in effect long term to buy resale then 25 retail. I think it'll move to 50 in the next few years as the minimum to get the perks. They could do this in a number of ways. They could simply say you need 50 qualified points to qualify, they could decide not to combine resale and retail contracts, they could simply move the minimum to 50 pts, or they could create a VIP program with qualifications in this area. I'm sure we could come up with other ways and variations as well.
Both positions have merit. IMO it is a no brainer for anyone who is buying a sufficient sized contract and can take the points numbers into account as part of their overall purchase strategy. Anyone buying resale who has done reasonable investigation should know this early in their process and can EASILY do this. Those that have the foresight and discipline to buy as a package by just buying slightly less retail then a 25 pt resale and who takes advantage of any of the discounts will be in roughly the same place or better than had they bought resale for all of the points. But anyone who is buying small will have an issue and will likely be paying more long term. That group is unlikely to save enough to justify boing smaller and adding the 25 pts. They are usually going to be better off buying the extra resale and foregoing the savings or in some cases if small enough, just go retail. And as I mentioned above, I doubt the option to just add 25 points to be qualified will remain a long term viable option so I would recommend most do so to give themselves longterm options even at the higher costs. In reality the likelihood is that most people will simply buy more points using this method than they would have otherwise and it will truly be an extra cost. If they do a small rental every few years they should end up roughly the same. If they just spend more points it will be a bigger expense with the questions of value that are more personal and variable. For smaller points buyers that is not necessarily a bad thing anyway and for larger points owners, 25 points more isn't make or break.
The reality is that many (most) end up needing/using more points than they originally buy. So. Even if they don't exercise maximum strategy and shave off 25 points from their desired size for the resale contract, it's fine.
There's much more going on here for Disney than direct receipts.
Some will need more points, many won't. IMO anyone who spends sufficient time and effort investigating DVC should be starting with a good plan. That might include resale with a retail add on, it might include X now and X again in a couple of years but for most they should have a good base starting. When we see someone who's just bought and the looking to do an add on, many times before they've even used it, generally that means that either they didn't make a good choice up front or they're acting on emotion (or both). Whether the cost is the full amount depends on their up front decisions and how they'll use it.
This will be a fluid environment. If DVD is successful in pushing potential and current members to buying a larger % of retail, it will depress resale prices to some degree.
From DVD'd standpoint all they really care about is about this years and future years sales. The bigger Disney picture is less of a concern to them but it is a consideration for other Disney components. DVC members don't subsidize resorts in general or housekeeping, they simply pay for what they use though at resorts that might be struggling in terms of occupancy, one could make that argument. Every single resale purchase is a lost potential retail sale. That some will proclaim they wouldn't have bought retail doesn't change that though only a small % of those that say so would likely have followed that path.
Timeshare sales is almost completely emotion where the tour is concerned and mostly for all purchases. I doubt we've seen the last change where restrictions are concerned.
If DVC is responding to the availability of easy access to social media, then restricting perks is an even worse decision on their part.
They already sell "used" points at retail prices. The only way they could add to that would be to sell what members want to move and take a commission. Marriott used to do this well before they introduced their points product. They took a sizable commission in doing so. Marriott also used to allow trade-ins but in doing so they restricted one to what they paid AND they took a commission for themselves just like it was being sold. They don't make as much on ROFR normally as they do on retail projects.
I think you're referencing a VIP program which is the only way they could do what you suggest in terms of booking window with the current product. Ultimately there isn't enough they can add on to do this, about all they have that can move the needle is to take away non contractual options. So they'll do both and likely more of both.
I'm sure lies have occurred but generally even the most aggressive salesperson is careful to at least be vague. As a rule DVC sales staff is far better and more ethical than most. They are often overly optimistic but I think it's usually because they believe the hype more than purposefully mislead.
