Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

[TexasChick123]

I was told:

Effective January 19, 2019, Club Members at all other DVC Resorts, including any future DVC Resorts, who purchase an Ownership Interest at any DVC Resort other than Riviera Resort, including at any future DVC Resort, from a third party other than directly from DVD, or other seller approved by DVD, may not convert the Vacation Points related to the Ownership Interest from the other DVC Resort to DVC Vacation Points to reserve Vacation Homes at Riviera Resort through the DVC Reservation Component. Purchasers who purchase an Ownership Interest at any DVC Resort, other than Riviera Resort, from a Club Member who owned the Ownership Interest prior to January 19, 2019, are excluded from the prohibition set forth in this Paragraph 2.
​

I was told this sentence in no way was to mean that if you purchase from an owner who owned prior to 1/19/19 you would be allowed to use Riviera. They said this was to say if you bought prior to 1/19/19 you would be grandfathered in no matter what.

They said legal would follow up in next week and they would give me a call back. But they said they do not intend at all to do what the thought might have been.

This was all told to me by leadership in Qualitu Assurance so he is going up to his higher department which is legal and compliance.

Sounds to me like a revision of the POS is in order with a new effective date if they don’t like what it says. Otherwise, good luck defending that you meant “a” when your documents state “b”. What DVD, aka the drafting party, wants it to say doesn’t matter. What matters is what it says or appears to say. I am still waiting to hear back from my email I sent off yesterday. They’ve got a heck of a fight on their hands with that language in the POS.

 

[drusba]

If only I could be the fly on the wall listening in on the emergency meeting that is likely going on this weekend to determine how to fix this major screw-up (assuming DVD really did not intend the sentence to say what it does say).

 

[TexasChick123]

I spoke with Member Relations this morning. I was told that they definitely intended all resales post-1/19 to be restricted from using points at Rivera or any other future resort. I voiced my concerns on how the particular sentence we’ve been referencing was worded and what I read that to mean. I also stated that the burden is on DVD to be as clear as possible when enacting these types of restrictions. She said she read it the other way but she could see the other interpretation and put me on hold to speak to someone in executive leadership. Then, she said she still read it her way but she would be sending on this feedback to executive leadership because they want everything to be completely clear and don’t want any members to be confused because of wording. I told her the fact that she could see my interpretation was a problem because the burden is on DVD to be clear. I then asked her to add to the feedback that my suggestion was to revise the POS to make the restriction clearer and have a new effective date. She said she was going to share all this with executive leadership and start her report as soon as we got off the phone. She was very polite and thanked me and said she hoped to have a conclusion on this soon. She didn’t indicate I would be contacted again.

Apologies for any typos. I’m doing this all on my phone.

 

[crvetter]

I spoke with Member Relations this morning. I was told that they definitely intended all resales post-1/19 to be restricted from using points at Rivera or any other future resort. I voiced my concerns on how the particular sentence we’ve been referencing was worded and what I read that to mean. I also stated that the burden is on DVD to be as clear as possible when enacting these types of restrictions. She said she read it the other way but she could see the other interpretation and put me on hold to speak to someone in executive leadership. Then, she said she still read it her way but she would be sending on this feedback to executive leadership because they want everything to be completely clear and don’t want any members to be confused because of wording. I told her the fact that she could see my interpretation was a problem because the burden is on DVD to be clear. I then asked her to add to the feedback that my suggestion was to revise the POS to make the restriction clearer and have a new effective date. She said she was going to share all this with executive leadership and start her report as soon as we got off the phone. She was very polite and thanked me and said she hoped to have a conclusion on this soon. She didn’t indicate I would be contacted again.

Apologies for any typos. I’m doing this all on my phone.

Sounds in line with the conversation I had. I expressed similar sentiments and got the same responses. Though I’m supposed to get a follow up call next week. I’ll keep you posted if they intend to modify.

Thank you for following up and taking the time to talk to them.

 

[cm8]

Legal and compliance lacking basic literacy skills, it seems. What's next? Accounting that can't add up the number of points at resorts accurately? Wait a second....

 

[TexasChick123]

Sounds in line with the conversation I had. I expressed similar sentiments and got the same responses. Though I’m supposed to get a follow up call next week. I’ll keep you posted if they intend to modify.

Thank you for following up and taking the time to talk to them.

I honestly do think this is worded in such a way that it says something different than what they intend. I hope members, other than just the handful of us, are contacting them to voice concerns on it. DVD should take this seriously as it could come back to bite them should they choose not to revise the language in the POS.

 

[montrealdisneylovers]

I spoke with Member Relations this morning. I was told that they definitely intended all resales post-1/19 to be restricted from using points at Rivera or any other future resort. I voiced my concerns on how the particular sentence we’ve been referencing was worded and what I read that to mean. I also stated that the burden is on DVD to be as clear as possible when enacting these types of restrictions. She said she read it the other way but she could see the other interpretation and put me on hold to speak to someone in executive leadership. Then, she said she still read it her way but she would be sending on this feedback to executive leadership because they want everything to be completely clear and don’t want any members to be confused because of wording. I told her the fact that she could see my interpretation was a problem because the burden is on DVD to be clear. I then asked her to add to the feedback that my suggestion was to revise the POS to make the restriction clearer and have a new effective date. She said she was going to share all this with executive leadership and start her report as soon as we got off the phone. She was very polite and thanked me and said she hoped to have a conclusion on this soon. She didn’t indicate I would be contacted again.

Apologies for any typos. I’m doing this all on my phone.

I hope they compensate you with some pixie dust! You and @crvetter are saving them a lot of future headaches and money!! Perhaps some free points for your services!!

 

[TexasChick123]

Late to the party joining the Magnificent 24. But I just received an email from Yvonne Chang's assistant inviting me to a phone conference next week.



I had to read that part several times when I got the document to make sure my foggy, jetlagged brain wasn't making things up. Wasn't expecting to be pleasantly surprised by anything in the revision!

I will bring this up with Chang to get some clarification and report back.

Please let us know how this goes. I didn’t get past Member Relations.

 

[Frederic Civish]

OK. The point about SSR is well-taken. It IS a disaster from a point of view of a LARGE resort that is rarely the owners first choice. . . . . Having SSR as a sinkhole for unused rooms is definitely not what they wanted out of it.

BUT- Disney/DVC brought these problems on their own - all through it's own greed. The same as the problem of too much studio demand (by selling so many small contracts) or the problem of the bungalows/cabins taking up points that no-one can afford to book.

The fact is - it seems like Disney MOSTLY benefits by resale prices being high. If you are only saving $40 a point and losing out on a lot of benefits, that's a lot better argument for buying direct. But when prices are low then more people are going to go to it - regardless of restrictions. And that's what I am not sure that I get this decision to restrict Riviera so much. As I said, it will be by far the cheapest resort on the resale market. But because of that, there's a good chance it will still be very popular in the resale market - even if you HAVE to stay there - there will be people that will say "Oh I'm at Disney".

Disney might have brought these problems on themselves, but we are the ones who end up paying the price for Disney's mistakes. Why? Because Disney won't admit they made mistakes, but then when their Direct Sales start to soften, they turn to us and blame us for buying on the resale market, and buying cheap so we can stay somewhere better. So they try to make some restrictions or changes, to make the Resales market suffer. And it is a neverending circle of chasing their tail.

Maybe we should make a list of Disney mistakes. (Maybe they are too numerous to mention.) I know some of these things didn't start off as mistakes. Some of them did arise simply because of Disney's greed, like building Bungalows, but others were well intentioned, like Vero Beach, HHI, Saratoga and Aulani.

* Off site resorts - News Flash to Disney, Disney people like Disney. A lot more than they like golf, the beach, or Hawaii. If they buy at HHI, VB or Aulani, it isn't that some of those people won't go to their home resorts, they will. But the problem is that MANY other people really expect to be going to Disney World every year, because THAT IS WHERE DISNEY IS. VB and HHI owners can also travel to DW inexpensively. An awful lot of them bought to visit those places occasionally, but they really, mostly, want to go to DW. And now, with points being so cheap on the resale market at HHI and VB, it is even worse. The vast majority of owners in the resale market for those points are looking for cheap points, so they can travel to DW. Possible partial solution: Find a way to INCREASE the cost of HHI and VB on the resale market. Can't think of anything else. Trying to drive down the value will also drive down the price, and increase sales, since the ULTIMATE value is the ability to stay at Disney World.

* Aulani - A special case of 'Off Site' Resorts. Trying to graft Disney into Hawaii with Aulani is a poor fit at best. And what were you thinking? That Owners would fly to Aulani every year, when it is cheaper to go to Disney World? Actually, what I think Disney was REALLY thinking is that they could persuade a large proportion of Asian visitors to Hawaii, to buy a place that they could come back to, and they called it Aulani. They probably calculated that those Asian visitors would be much LESS likely to go to Disney World. Unfortunately, no one seems to want Aulani, whether they are from other countries or from the U.S. We talk about how sales wrapped up for AKV - Kidani, BLT, Grand Floridian, and Poly. ALL of them finished selling since Aulani came on the market. And Copper Creek will soon sell out. Then Riviera will sell out LONG before they are finished selling Aulani. Aulani is only HALF SOLD, after 8 years. What a mistake. Now, it doesn't hurt the rest of DVC that Aulani is only half sold, but once again, it proves that no one WANTS Aulani. Including that no one wants to go there. So Aulani points are far and away mostly used at DW. (Hey, before you Aulani people start jumping all over me, I do know that there are SOME Aulani owners who actually want to go to Aulani. But you guys do realize you are in the minority, right?)

* Building Bungalows and Cabins - This 'mistake' was the result of pure Disney greed. DISNEY DECIDED THAT THEY KNEW HOW TO GAME THE SYSTEM. Instead, they made an embarrassing mistake that everyone can see. Go check room availability RIGHT NOW for 1 month out. Check ALL the resorts. The Resort and Room Type with the very best availability WILL be Poly Bungalows. How to fix this? They can't. Apparently they can't even shift points away from the Bungalows and onto the Standard and Lake View Studio, because, apparently, ANY point changes must balance WITHIN THE SAME UNIT TYPE. They might mitigate it some of they built a resort that is extra extra heavy on studios, in the future. (All the studios at Poly don't even come close to balancing the Bungalows and adsorbing their usage points.

* Quit selling small contracts. All contracts for NEW DVC Members should be 100 points or more, always. Forever. Smaller contracts should NEVER be less than the minimum amount to qualify for Direct perks, AND they should only be available to current DVC owners. Better yet, just require EVERYONE including current owners to always buy 100 points or more. This would also mean that if someone buys 200 points, Direct, they can't be permitted to purchase them as 4 contracts of 50 points each. (In the interest of fairness, I am guilty here. I bought 325 points Direct for Poly and split it into 4 contracts of 75 points and 1 contract of 25 points. It should not have been allowed.)

* SSR is too big, with too many people who want to stay elsewhere. It wouldn't be too big if it was more desirable and more a destination itself. People also buy it because it gives them relatively cheap points. We talk about Disney not having any more PRIME locations left to develop, but SSR was never prime. It is a very big plus for it that it is close to Disney Springs, which can also be a great destination, but most of SSR is too far away from Disney Springs to walk. And if you aren't going to use SSR for Disney Springs then it is horribly out of position for the rest of the parks. Solution, Make SSR more desirable, so people will want to stay there. How? Make the rooms BETTER than everywhere else. Extra fancy. And, effectively make it 'closer' to Disney Springs and to other parks by building a gondola from Epcot, Caribbean Beach or Riviera, to Typhoon Lagoon, then continue onwards to Disney Springs, SSR, OKW and Port Orleans, in that order. This is about 5 miles, total. If gondolas cost $5 million per mile, it would be a $25 million investment. A paltry sum for Disney, especially since it would pay Disney back by increasing traffic through Disney Springs, and visitors to Typhoon Lagoon. Even more people would visit Disney Springs, and eat there and spend time and money there, if it were more convenient, rather than being on the edge of Disney World all by itself.

Well, there are a few of the MAJOR mistakes by Disney, that are affecting DVC. Anyone want to suggest some more?

 

[Madame]

Disney might have brought these problems on themselves, but we are the ones who end up paying the price for Disney's mistakes. Why? Because Disney won't admit they made mistakes, but then when their Direct Sales start to soften, they turn to us and blame us for buying on the resale market, and buying cheap so we can stay somewhere better. So they try to make some restrictions or changes, to make the Resales market suffer. And it is a neverending circle of chasing their tail.

Maybe we should make a list of Disney mistakes. (Maybe they are too numerous to mention.) I know some of these things didn't start off as mistakes. Some of them did arise simply because of Disney's greed, like building Bungalows, but others were well intentioned, like Vero Beach, HHI, Saratoga and Aulani.

* Off site resorts - News Flash to Disney, Disney people like Disney. A lot more than they like golf, the beach, or Hawaii. If they buy at HHI, VB or Aulani, it isn't that some of those people won't go to their home resorts, they will. But the problem is that MANY other people really expect to be going to Disney World every year, because THAT IS WHERE DISNEY IS. VB and HHI owners can also travel to DW inexpensively. An awful lot of them bought to visit those places occasionally, but they really, mostly, want to go to DW. And now, with points being so cheap on the resale market at HHI and VB, it is even worse. The vast majority of owners in the resale market for those points are looking for cheap points, so they can travel to DW. Possible partial solution: Find a way to INCREASE the cost of HHI and VB on the resale market. Can't think of anything else. Trying to drive down the value will also drive down the price, and increase sales, since the ULTIMATE value is the ability to stay at Disney World.

* Aulani - A special case of 'Off Site' Resorts. Trying to graft Disney into Hawaii with Aulani is a poor fit at best. And what were you thinking? That Owners would fly to Aulani every year, when it is cheaper to go to Disney World? Actually, what I think Disney was REALLY thinking is that they could persuade a large proportion of Asian visitors to Hawaii, to buy a place that they could come back to, and they called it Aulani. They probably calculated that those Asian visitors would be much LESS likely to go to Disney World. Unfortunately, no one seems to want Aulani, whether they are from other countries or from the U.S. We talk about how sales wrapped up for AKV - Kidani, BLT, Grand Floridian, and Poly. ALL of them finished selling since Aulani came on the market. And Copper Creek will soon sell out. Then Riviera will sell out LONG before they are finished selling Aulani. Aulani is only HALF SOLD, after 8 years. What a mistake. Now, it doesn't hurt the rest of DVC that Aulani is only half sold, but once again, it proves that no one WANTS Aulani. Including that no one wants to go there. So Aulani points are far and away mostly used at DW. (Hey, before you Aulani people start jumping all over me, I do know that there are SOME Aulani owners who actually want to go to Aulani. But you guys do realize you are in the minority, right?)

* Building Bungalows and Cabins - This 'mistake' was the result of pure Disney greed. DISNEY DECIDED THAT THEY KNEW HOW TO GAME THE SYSTEM. Instead, they made an embarrassing mistake that everyone can see. Go check room availability RIGHT NOW for 1 month out. Check ALL the resorts. The Resort and Room Type with the very best availability WILL be Poly Bungalows. How to fix this? They can't. Apparently they can't even shift points away from the Bungalows and onto the Standard and Lake View Studio, because, apparently, ANY point changes must balance WITHIN THE SAME UNIT TYPE. They might mitigate it some of they built a resort that is extra extra heavy on studios, in the future. (All the studios at Poly don't even come close to balancing the Bungalows and adsorbing their usage points.

* Quit selling small contracts. All contracts for NEW DVC Members should be 100 points or more, always. Forever. Smaller contracts should NEVER be less than the minimum amount to qualify for Direct perks, AND they should only be available to current DVC owners. Better yet, just require EVERYONE including current owners to always buy 100 points or more. This would also mean that if someone buys 200 points, Direct, they can't be permitted to purchase them as 4 contracts of 50 points each. (In the interest of fairness, I am guilty here. I bought 325 points Direct for Poly and split it into 4 contracts of 75 points and 1 contract of 25 points. It should not have been allowed.)

* SSR is too big, with too many people who want to stay elsewhere. It wouldn't be too big if it was more desirable and more a destination itself. People also buy it because it gives them relatively cheap points. We talk about Disney not having any more PRIME locations left to develop, but SSR was never prime. It is a very big plus for it that it is close to Disney Springs, which can also be a great destination, but most of SSR is too far away from Disney Springs to walk. And if you aren't going to use SSR for Disney Springs then it is horribly out of position for the rest of the parks. Solution, Make SSR more desirable, so people will want to stay there. How? Make the rooms BETTER than everywhere else. Extra fancy. And, effectively make it 'closer' to Disney Springs and to other parks by building a gondola from Epcot, Caribbean Beach or Riviera, to Typhoon Lagoon, then continue onwards to Disney Springs, SSR, OKW and Port Orleans, in that order. This is about 5 miles, total. If gondolas cost $5 million per mile, it would be a $25 million investment. A paltry sum for Disney, especially since it would pay Disney back by increasing traffic through Disney Springs, and visitors to Typhoon Lagoon. Even more people would visit Disney Springs, and eat there and spend time and money there, if it were more convenient, rather than being on the edge of Disney World all by itself.

Well, there are a few of the MAJOR mistakes by Disney, that are affecting DVC. Anyone want to suggest some more?

Excellent list. They need a seasonal adjustment of points. It’s been put off for far too long.

 

[Spartan86]

I spoke with Member Relations this morning. I was told that they definitely intended all resales post-1/19 to be restricted from using points at Rivera or any other future resort. I voiced my concerns on how the particular sentence we’ve been referencing was worded and what I read that to mean. I also stated that the burden is on DVD to be as clear as possible when enacting these types of restrictions. She said she read it the other way but she could see the other interpretation and put me on hold to speak to someone in executive leadership. Then, she said she still read it her way but she would be sending on this feedback to executive leadership because they want everything to be completely clear and don’t want any members to be confused because of wording. I told her the fact that she could see my interpretation was a problem because the burden is on DVD to be clear. I then asked her to add to the feedback that my suggestion was to revise the POS to make the restriction clearer and have a new effective date. She said she was going to share all this with executive leadership and start her report as soon as we got off the phone. She was very polite and thanked me and said she hoped to have a conclusion on this soon. She didn’t indicate I would be contacted again.

Apologies for any typos. I’m doing this all on my phone.

Thank you!

 

[skier_pete]

Disney might have brought these problems on themselves, but we are the ones who end up paying the price for Disney's mistakes. Why? Because Disney won't admit they made mistakes, but then when their Direct Sales start to soften, they turn to us and blame us for buying on the resale market, and buying cheap so we can stay somewhere better. So they try to make some restrictions or changes, to make the Resales market suffer. And it is a neverending circle of chasing their tail.

Maybe we should make a list of Disney mistakes. (Maybe they are too numerous to mention.) I know some of these things didn't start off as mistakes. Some of them did arise simply because of Disney's greed, like building Bungalows, but others were well intentioned, like Vero Beach, HHI, Saratoga and Aulani.

* Off site resorts - News Flash to Disney, Disney people like Disney. A lot more than they like golf, the beach, or Hawaii. If they buy at HHI, VB or Aulani, it isn't that some of those people won't go to their home resorts, they will. But the problem is that MANY other people really expect to be going to Disney World every year, because THAT IS WHERE DISNEY IS. VB and HHI owners can also travel to DW inexpensively. An awful lot of them bought to visit those places occasionally, but they really, mostly, want to go to DW. And now, with points being so cheap on the resale market at HHI and VB, it is even worse. The vast majority of owners in the resale market for those points are looking for cheap points, so they can travel to DW. Possible partial solution: Find a way to INCREASE the cost of HHI and VB on the resale market. Can't think of anything else. Trying to drive down the value will also drive down the price, and increase sales, since the ULTIMATE value is the ability to stay at Disney World.

* Aulani - A special case of 'Off Site' Resorts. Trying to graft Disney into Hawaii with Aulani is a poor fit at best. And what were you thinking? That Owners would fly to Aulani every year, when it is cheaper to go to Disney World? Actually, what I think Disney was REALLY thinking is that they could persuade a large proportion of Asian visitors to Hawaii, to buy a place that they could come back to, and they called it Aulani. They probably calculated that those Asian visitors would be much LESS likely to go to Disney World. Unfortunately, no one seems to want Aulani, whether they are from other countries or from the U.S. We talk about how sales wrapped up for AKV - Kidani, BLT, Grand Floridian, and Poly. ALL of them finished selling since Aulani came on the market. And Copper Creek will soon sell out. Then Riviera will sell out LONG before they are finished selling Aulani. Aulani is only HALF SOLD, after 8 years. What a mistake. Now, it doesn't hurt the rest of DVC that Aulani is only half sold, but once again, it proves that no one WANTS Aulani. Including that no one wants to go there. So Aulani points are far and away mostly used at DW. (Hey, before you Aulani people start jumping all over me, I do know that there are SOME Aulani owners who actually want to go to Aulani. But you guys do realize you are in the minority, right?)

* Building Bungalows and Cabins - This 'mistake' was the result of pure Disney greed. DISNEY DECIDED THAT THEY KNEW HOW TO GAME THE SYSTEM. Instead, they made an embarrassing mistake that everyone can see. Go check room availability RIGHT NOW for 1 month out. Check ALL the resorts. The Resort and Room Type with the very best availability WILL be Poly Bungalows. How to fix this? They can't. Apparently they can't even shift points away from the Bungalows and onto the Standard and Lake View Studio, because, apparently, ANY point changes must balance WITHIN THE SAME UNIT TYPE. They might mitigate it some of they built a resort that is extra extra heavy on studios, in the future. (All the studios at Poly don't even come close to balancing the Bungalows and adsorbing their usage points.

* Quit selling small contracts. All contracts for NEW DVC Members should be 100 points or more, always. Forever. Smaller contracts should NEVER be less than the minimum amount to qualify for Direct perks, AND they should only be available to current DVC owners. Better yet, just require EVERYONE including current owners to always buy 100 points or more. This would also mean that if someone buys 200 points, Direct, they can't be permitted to purchase them as 4 contracts of 50 points each. (In the interest of fairness, I am guilty here. I bought 325 points Direct for Poly and split it into 4 contracts of 75 points and 1 contract of 25 points. It should not have been allowed.)

* SSR is too big, with too many people who want to stay elsewhere. It wouldn't be too big if it was more desirable and more a destination itself. People also buy it because it gives them relatively cheap points. We talk about Disney not having any more PRIME locations left to develop, but SSR was never prime. It is a very big plus for it that it is close to Disney Springs, which can also be a great destination, but most of SSR is too far away from Disney Springs to walk. And if you aren't going to use SSR for Disney Springs then it is horribly out of position for the rest of the parks. Solution, Make SSR more desirable, so people will want to stay there. How? Make the rooms BETTER than everywhere else. Extra fancy. And, effectively make it 'closer' to Disney Springs and to other parks by building a gondola from Epcot, Caribbean Beach or Riviera, to Typhoon Lagoon, then continue onwards to Disney Springs, SSR, OKW and Port Orleans, in that order. This is about 5 miles, total. If gondolas cost $5 million per mile, it would be a $25 million investment. A paltry sum for Disney, especially since it would pay Disney back by increasing traffic through Disney Springs, and visitors to Typhoon Lagoon. Even more people would visit Disney Springs, and eat there and spend time and money there, if it were more convenient, rather than being on the edge of Disney World all by itself.

Well, there are a few of the MAJOR mistakes by Disney, that are affecting DVC. Anyone want to suggest some more?

The Bungalows/Cabin were definitely on purpose. They HAD to know what was going to result from that and they didn't care.
SSR the same thing. Even at that point they had resorts at BCV/BWV and had to know it wouldn't be as popular a location. Admittedly it was before the new "luxury" DVC.
HHI/VB were at a different stage of DVC - when they really were looking at it to be more broad timeshares. It was more of a change of direction that affected that. I guarantee when those contract up in 2042, I bet they don't even renew them as Disney timeshare resorts and sell them off.
Aulani was a genuine mistake in policy. As you say, they thought they could get an Asian market that never worked out. However, I disagree that the majority of the people there bought it for primarily WDW purposes. Most would be west coasters, and the wouldn't but something in Hawaii for solely that purpose. However, where your right is they do want to also use it at WDW, while there is probably not enough reciprocation about that.
The small contracts - I'm not sure what they can do there. I agree they should limit the size, but they are already limiting them to 75 points. 75 or 100 points its the same. They really should put some sort of limit that's higher than that (perhaps 150 points) but they would lose a lot of sales. Consistently the AVERAGE contract size is 140-150, this has been going on for as long as I've been a member. If the AVERAGE contract size is 150, then for each 300 point contract they are selling 3 or 4 smaller contracts. There's no way they eliminate small contracts.

The real solution to a lot of their problems is to get more studios in the system. If Disney were smart, they limit the number of large units (GVs and bungalows), have any new resorts have about twice as many studios as 1- or 2-bedrooms.Not saying that people don't rent the larger units, but they rent a lot more. I really thought that Disney had realized this with the Poly (bungalows being a separate issue), but then they build CCV.

 

[lovin'fl]

Disney might have brought these problems on themselves, but we are the ones who end up paying the price for Disney's mistakes. Why? Because Disney won't admit they made mistakes, but then when their Direct Sales start to soften, they turn to us and blame us for buying on the resale market, and buying cheap so we can stay somewhere better. So they try to make some restrictions or changes, to make the Resales market suffer. And it is a neverending circle of chasing their tail.

Maybe we should make a list of Disney mistakes. (Maybe they are too numerous to mention.) I know some of these things didn't start off as mistakes. Some of them did arise simply because of Disney's greed, like building Bungalows, but others were well intentioned, like Vero Beach, HHI, Saratoga and Aulani.

* Off site resorts - News Flash to Disney, Disney people like Disney. A lot more than they like golf, the beach, or Hawaii. If they buy at HHI, VB or Aulani, it isn't that some of those people won't go to their home resorts, they will. But the problem is that MANY other people really expect to be going to Disney World every year, because THAT IS WHERE DISNEY IS. VB and HHI owners can also travel to DW inexpensively. An awful lot of them bought to visit those places occasionally, but they really, mostly, want to go to DW. And now, with points being so cheap on the resale market at HHI and VB, it is even worse. The vast majority of owners in the resale market for those points are looking for cheap points, so they can travel to DW. Possible partial solution: Find a way to INCREASE the cost of HHI and VB on the resale market. Can't think of anything else. Trying to drive down the value will also drive down the price, and increase sales, since the ULTIMATE value is the ability to stay at Disney World.

* Aulani - A special case of 'Off Site' Resorts. Trying to graft Disney into Hawaii with Aulani is a poor fit at best. And what were you thinking? That Owners would fly to Aulani every year, when it is cheaper to go to Disney World? Actually, what I think Disney was REALLY thinking is that they could persuade a large proportion of Asian visitors to Hawaii, to buy a place that they could come back to, and they called it Aulani. They probably calculated that those Asian visitors would be much LESS likely to go to Disney World. Unfortunately, no one seems to want Aulani, whether they are from other countries or from the U.S. We talk about how sales wrapped up for AKV - Kidani, BLT, Grand Floridian, and Poly. ALL of them finished selling since Aulani came on the market. And Copper Creek will soon sell out. Then Riviera will sell out LONG before they are finished selling Aulani. Aulani is only HALF SOLD, after 8 years. What a mistake. Now, it doesn't hurt the rest of DVC that Aulani is only half sold, but once again, it proves that no one WANTS Aulani. Including that no one wants to go there. So Aulani points are far and away mostly used at DW. (Hey, before you Aulani people start jumping all over me, I do know that there are SOME Aulani owners who actually want to go to Aulani. But you guys do realize you are in the minority, right?)

* Building Bungalows and Cabins - This 'mistake' was the result of pure Disney greed. DISNEY DECIDED THAT THEY KNEW HOW TO GAME THE SYSTEM. Instead, they made an embarrassing mistake that everyone can see. Go check room availability RIGHT NOW for 1 month out. Check ALL the resorts. The Resort and Room Type with the very best availability WILL be Poly Bungalows. How to fix this? They can't. Apparently they can't even shift points away from the Bungalows and onto the Standard and Lake View Studio, because, apparently, ANY point changes must balance WITHIN THE SAME UNIT TYPE. They might mitigate it some of they built a resort that is extra extra heavy on studios, in the future. (All the studios at Poly don't even come close to balancing the Bungalows and adsorbing their usage points.

* Quit selling small contracts. All contracts for NEW DVC Members should be 100 points or more, always. Forever. Smaller contracts should NEVER be less than the minimum amount to qualify for Direct perks, AND they should only be available to current DVC owners. Better yet, just require EVERYONE including current owners to always buy 100 points or more. This would also mean that if someone buys 200 points, Direct, they can't be permitted to purchase them as 4 contracts of 50 points each. (In the interest of fairness, I am guilty here. I bought 325 points Direct for Poly and split it into 4 contracts of 75 points and 1 contract of 25 points. It should not have been allowed.)

* SSR is too big, with too many people who want to stay elsewhere. It wouldn't be too big if it was more desirable and more a destination itself. People also buy it because it gives them relatively cheap points. We talk about Disney not having any more PRIME locations left to develop, but SSR was never prime. It is a very big plus for it that it is close to Disney Springs, which can also be a great destination, but most of SSR is too far away from Disney Springs to walk. And if you aren't going to use SSR for Disney Springs then it is horribly out of position for the rest of the parks. Solution, Make SSR more desirable, so people will want to stay there. How? Make the rooms BETTER than everywhere else. Extra fancy. And, effectively make it 'closer' to Disney Springs and to other parks by building a gondola from Epcot, Caribbean Beach or Riviera, to Typhoon Lagoon, then continue onwards to Disney Springs, SSR, OKW and Port Orleans, in that order. This is about 5 miles, total. If gondolas cost $5 million per mile, it would be a $25 million investment. A paltry sum for Disney, especially since it would pay Disney back by increasing traffic through Disney Springs, and visitors to Typhoon Lagoon. Even more people would visit Disney Springs, and eat there and spend time and money there, if it were more convenient, rather than being on the edge of Disney World all by itself.

Well, there are a few of the MAJOR mistakes by Disney, that are affecting DVC. Anyone want to suggest some more?

I would add, and maybe you did state this somewhere in here, that allowing studios to sleep 5 also has been part of the problem. That is what led folks to start buying small contracts with plans to do studio stays with a family of 5. The 5 person capacity studio coupled with the extreme pricing of direct points has led to all the small contract purchases.

 

[Mumof4mice]

Please let us know how this goes. I didn’t get past Member Relations.

Absolutely.

You could try emailing them instead of calling. The more people contacting them the better!

I sent an email to:
members@disneyvacationclub.com
And received an email from Chang's assistant after about 5 days.

 

[freediverdude]

Now that I read that section a few times, I understand how it can be taken either way, but they didn't word it very well. On first reading it looks like "club member who owned", when in fact the "who" in that sentence is referring back to the first word "Purchasers" in the sentence. They need to add a ", and" in between "club member" and "who" so it reads correctly - "Purchasers.....from a club member, and who owned the Ownership Interest..."

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

Diagramming sentences is a lost art.

 

[TexasChick123]

Now that I read that section a few times, I understand how it can be taken either way, but they didn't word it very well. On first reading it looks like "club member who owned", when in fact the "who" in that sentence is referring back to the first word "Purchasers" in the sentence. They need to add a ", and" in between "club member" and "who" so it reads correctly - "Purchasers.....from a club member, and who owned the Ownership Interest..."

I agree and had the same thought about adding “, and”. At first glance, it reads the way we’re all saying it does. Having to spend time analyzing it to figure out what they meant is extremely concerning from a legal standpoint. We all thought they were grandfathering us in if we decide to sell which is a completely different thing than what they intended. The most straightforward interpretation of the statement is not what they meant. IMO, that’s a huge problem.

 

[MickeyTrooper]

https://www.theage.com.au/business/...y-devalued-resale-rights-20190215-p50y2u.html

 

[meekey7197]

I would add, and maybe you did state this somewhere in here, that allowing studios to sleep 5 also has been part of the problem. That is what led folks to start buying small contracts with plans to do studio stays with a family of 5. The 5 person capacity studio coupled with the extreme pricing of direct points has led to all the small contract purchases.

If they could somehow reconfigure the one bedrooms to sleep 6 I think it would take pressure off the studios. At this point it is almost always "cheaper" to book 2 studios than to book a 2 bedroom. You can make all the arguments you want about the added amenities in a 2 bedroom but for some people it is solely about a place to sleep and nothing more.

 

[zavandor]

I honestly do think this is worded in such a way that it says something different than what they intend. I hope members, other than just the handful of us, are contacting them to voice concerns on it. DVD should take this seriously as it could come back to bite them should they choose not to revise the language in the POS.

It is not clear to me the value of the Multi Site POS. What counts really is still the single resort POS, I've been told here that in case od conflict the single resort POS is still the one to "win". So how can they write something with such an impact in the Multi Site POS and not change the resorts POS?
I do expect them to publish revised resort POS this year to allow themselves the changes they wanted to do in the 2020 year. At that time they'll also introduce the resale restrictions and they'll do it (hopefully) in a clearer way.