Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

[Spartan86]

I actually don’t see them changing home resort priority for direct vs resale owners. What I think they want to avoid is people buying the cheapest points exclusively to stay at more expensive resorts. Basically I think the change is to “quarantine” a failed resort. Now that is what they define as failed. I was pretty much told this was exactly the motive. Though I blame Disney for this issue they need to make resorts compelling on their own and not phone it home.

I’m not sure I get the thinking. So using VGF as a hypothetical: DVD sold out the resort at direct pricing, all points in circulation have MF being paid on them but DVC doesn’t want OKW points for instance being used there? Why would they care at a sold out resort, or any resort for that matter? Perhaps I’m missing your meaning - Disney trying to make direct look more compelling than resale over time going forward by continuing to restrict resale?

 

[TexasChick123]

But of the many things they could do - it would actually be pretty fair - you are spending a bunch extra to buy direct - why shouldn't that give you an advantage over the resale buyers? Even if you made it 11 months direct, and 10.5 months resale.

Remember, everything that Disney has done is for one purpose - to sell the newest timeshare resorts. It's not that they want to hurt resale buyers - but that's ends up being the result of selling to direct buyers. This is why they don't mind grandfathering older resale buyers - those people have already bought, who cares. It's the future buyers.

Something like this is done throughout timeshare systems. I know the other timeshare I own through vacation villages - I get access as follows:
13 months - home week
12 months - home resort
11 months - home group of resorts
10 months - ALL resorts

Wouldn't really see it as a major issue as long as resale buyers get a shot before all of DVC. It would definitely push DVC resale further down the table though if you can only book at your home resort AND you can't book as early as direct owners.

I don’t see it as unfair, it just makes Riviera resale look even more unappealing than it already did with the new restrictions. They’re within their rights, and I completely understand the goal, but it stinks if you’re looking to buy Riviera via resale. I don’t know how much impact these different booking periods would have, but it will have some impact.

I’m not sure I get the thinking. So using VGF as a hypothetical: DVD sold out the resort at direct pricing, all points in circulation have MF being paid on them but DVC doesn’t want OKW points for instance being used there? Why would they care at a sold out resort, or any resort for that matter? Perhaps I’m missing your meaning - Disney trying to make direct look more compelling than resale over time going forward by continuing to restrict resale?

They care because they would rather sell VGF points direct than OKW or SSR because of the price difference in direct points. That’s my thought anyway.

 

[TheMick424]

I actually don’t see them changing home resort priority for direct vs resale owners. What I think they want to avoid is people buying the cheapest points exclusively to stay at more expensive resorts. Basically I think the change is to “quarantine” a failed resort. Now that is what they define as failed. I was pretty much told this was exactly the motive. Though I blame Disney for this issue they need to make resorts compelling on their own and not phone it home.

How do you think they would define a “failed” resort?

 

[skier_pete]

How do you think they would define a “failed” resort?

Aulani.

Seriously - the only way a resort fails if it is doesn't sell on their expected timeline. Aulani is a failure. It's been on sale for almost 10 years and will take at least another 5 to sell. Disaster.

No other resort is a failure. They've all sold out in pretty much the timeframe they wanted or faster.

 

[crvetter]

I’m not sure I get the thinking. So using VGF as a hypothetical: DVD sold out the resort at direct pricing, all points in circulation have MF being paid on them but DVC doesn’t want OKW points for instance being used there? Why would they care at a sold out resort, or any resort for that matter? Perhaps I’m missing your meaning - Disney trying to make direct look more compelling than resale over time going forward by continuing to restrict resale?

The point that was made it wasn't DVC not wanting the points used there but VGF or PVB owners (for example) who paid more in resale and direct that OKW owners. They said people were getting upset that lower cost points were immediately jumping to other resorts making direct owners at the more "desirable" resorts book always within their home resort window.

How do you think they would define a “failed” resort?

I would suspect the way they define a failed resort is one in which its resale value is significantly lower than the other resorts, when adjusted for the time remaining on contract. Another larger caveat would be a resort where most owners are not staying at with their points a majority of time.

When I brought this issue up to DVCMC and Sales Manager (on why they would purposefully hinder the system), I got the same response Disney is implementing this change due to the influx of cheaper points being bought at resale. They went on to explain that a majority Direct buyers were not happy that it has caused a stress on the system that "failed" resorts were putting. They said people were expressing that they felt their was a value difference in points being used across the system and the system should prevent that. While I disagree with the changes I think that rationalization is sound and can see why people would be upset. People buying Vero or HHI because it is the cheapest but never intending to use it there but only at WDW. I was explained that when you purchased your home resort Disney's intention was all along a majority of your stays would occur at your home resort and the other DVC resorts would be to move around for capacity purposes; it wasn't to set up points that would be exclusively purchased with the intention of moving. Also I believe Disney set some resorts up like Saratoga, I think they got greedy with the point charts there. They were too much and should be much more inline with OKW which is exactly why they added the standard and preferred bookings. Also they spent money directly hooking the preferred sections to Disney Springs, all of which I was directly told.

Again I'm only reiterating what I was told. I only agree in the sense I think there is a rational motive behind their movements. Though I personally think it won't fix the issue. The issue is them building some resorts that should have been more planned. I bought into a system knowing that if I wanted to switch from my home resort at 7 months that basically would be it. And I knew if I wanted my home resort I better book between 11-7 months.

No other resort is a failure. They've all sold out in pretty much the timeframe they wanted or faster.

I would bet there are what they view as resorts that are "failed" now. I'm sure HHI and Vero are examples also. While I'm sure there are plenty of buyers that own there who stay there they have major issues with people wanting to buy there simply because it is cheap. They can control the Direct purchasers to an extent from buying there buy on resale they can't easily. Thus the constraints they implemented. I think resorts desirability can go through cycles.

Overall I want the resale market to thrive because then I know I can sell if I ever need to. And if part of that is people buying "cheap" points than good because it makes all points have a bottom price to them. Overall I think each resort serves a purpose to the overall system and am happy each one exits. But I'm a person that has always enjoyed spending a day looking at the Disney Resorts.

P.S. items in quotes are meant to be in quotes because I wasn't using that language but it was the language used when I spoke to DVC. Also this whole restriction is nothing more than to create two classes of points. Points that are from resorts people only intend to use them at. And points that people don't actually want to own at.

 

[TheMick424]

I personally think that DVC needs to do a better job at making all the resorts a desirable place to stay. Obviously people will prefer the convenience of certain locations but what sticks out to me is how many people avoid staying at SSR like the plague. Hopefully the long overdue refurb will help make it more current, but what would entice people who own SSR points to stay there most of the time?

 

[crvetter]

I personally think that DVC needs to do a better job at making all the resorts a desirable place to stay. Obviously people will prefer the convenience of certain locations but what sticks out to me is how many people avoid staying at SSR like the plague. Hopefully the long overdue refurb will help make it more current, but what would entice people who own SSR points to stay there most of the time?

I think Disney Springs, the rehab, and creating the standard and preferred section are going a long way to make SSR a stand out. I mean fold out murphy beds is a huge deal and they will be the second resort with them. Plus I can see the appeal of walking to Disney Springs which is actually worthwhile much different than Downtown Disney in the early 2000s when a lot was shutting down.

 

[Aussie RJ]

How do we see these hypothetical changes being implemented? Would current resale owners always be “grandfathered” and avoid the restrictions?

 

[nkosiek]

True but I just think that is the way the system works. As a direct owner at a resort I feel differentiating this way is a complete 180 from the way the system works and is to pander to direct owners. It’s all a sales tactic and I don’t think resale owners ever harmed the system. In fact they helped the system because there was a resale value to a contract.

I actually don’t see them changing home resort priority for direct vs resale owners. What I think they want to avoid is people buying the cheapest points exclusively to stay at more expensive resorts. Basically I think the change is to “quarantine” a failed resort. Now that is what they define as failed. I was pretty much told this was exactly the motive. Though I blame Disney for this issue they need to make resorts compelling on their own and not phone it home.

Yet they did put that one new piece into the POS about the possibility of home resort timeline possibly being different for resale, and I stand by my belief and you use a great term, it's pandering to Direct buyers.

As for the second paragraph, perhaps they could manage not to make another SSR. I think park linkage is the key. As long as these new resorts have better access to parks than SSR/OKW, I think they will be better desired. As for quarantining, they can't go backwards and do that to SSR.

 

[crvetter]

Yet they did put that one new piece into the POS about the possibility of home resort timeline possibly being different for resale, and I stand by my belief and you use a great term, it's pandering to Direct buyers.

As for the second paragraph, perhaps they could manage not to make another SSR. I think park linkage is the key. As long as these new resorts have better access to parks than SSR/OKW, I think they will be better desired. As for quarantining, they can't go backwards and do that to SSR.

I definitely agree with your statements here. It is pandering which is being done to driven direct sales. Hopefully direct buyers are educated which won't allow this tactic to work. But that is putting too much stock in a large population buying on impulse. Also I think they did justice to Riviera with the Skyliner. So if Skyliner takes off and is iconic then Riviera will succeed.

 

[Wakey]

Riviera resale just went down from the $70's to the $50's in my speculative guess at what it will be worth. Just way too risky. Not only am I limited to Riviera, but now I may have a shorter booking window, and also maybe cannot use the points in RCI.
One for the gamblers.

 

[chainkid]

When I purchased my first contracts direct, it never occurred to me that I would resell it if I fell on hard times. I believe I was told that it was abit different from other timeshares in that Disney could exercise ROFR and buy it back if price was too low. As a more experienced owner now, I would never in a million years buy Riviera with all the restrictions on resale. I have some resale contracts and some direct all grandfathered in as I have owned them many years now. Knowing I can sell resale at a profit or buy the original resorts resale is a big unexpected plus to me. New potential owners will buy on impulse be fed a load of garbage by their salesperson and find out the horrifying truth when a layoff or divorce forces them to try and unload. I've gotten my value out of BWV and will ride it out as long as I am able and probably sell for peanuts within last few years from my nursing home bed. Never had a regret but DVC is changing and not for the better IMO.

 

[ParkHoppers]

Riviera resale just went down from the $70's to the $50's in my speculative guess at what it will be worth. Just way too risky. Not only am I limited to Riviera, but now I may have a shorter booking window, and also maybe cannot use the points in RCI.
One for the gamblers.

Agreed. It would be one thing if I could only stay at the Riviera and I got my resale dirt cheap but if they also messed with the home booking window I would be out on buying resale Riviera. A bridge too far for me.

 

[DougEMG]

I think this is partly in response to recent resale purchasers (specifically at the older EPCOT resorts) who bought ONLY to stay there and have, in conjunction with the point charts, made booking during Fall Frenzy more difficult, at times impossible without major walking.

This is a problem easily corrected by changing the point chart. No need to set off a nuke to solve that problem.

 

[Frederic Civish]

They had their lawyers working overtime on these. I think you are referring to: "4. DVD has reserved the right, in its discretion to modify or revoke implementation of any of these prohibitions, or then reinstate implementation of any of these prohibitions as it determines in its discretion from time to time, or permit such conversions for such Club Members who pay a fee or acquire an additional Ownership Interest at Riviera Resort or other DVC Resort, or to place additional prohibitions or limitations on certain Club Members including implementing such prohibitions or limitations to select Club Members or categories of Club Members or to set times. Such actions or decisions may be implemented by DVD, in its discretion, through a notice recorded in the public records, by requiring BVTC to make such an amendment to the BVTC Disclosure Document, or such other method, and such exercise of its reserved right shall not be subject to the approval or consent of any person, including the Association or any Club Member."

They are saying that they can amend or revoke the particular limitation with regards to pre- versus post-1/1/19 resale buyers. It is in a particular section, so it only applies to that section. Same thing with the Riviera section.

Thank you. That clarifies things, and makes the statement much more limited.

 

[Jack_Sparrow_NJ]

It strikes me that Disney could be setting this up to cut the current guides out of selling sold out resorts. They could tell guides they are only compensated on selling new resorts.

Then they create a low-cost entity to market resales that they have ROFRed and foreclosures that they have taken back. They use a low cost sales force and offer full trading privileges. This way they can offer a full featured resale product, but keep more of the value for themselves. Other resale companies are OK for the time being with the legacy 14, but over time, more and more resales will go through the Disney approved channel.

They could limit their guides to only selling new resorts while a third party would handle marketing and selling resale

 

[DougEMG]

The only thing Disney cares about is how to turn buyers from resale buyers into direct buyers. There are two basic approach one can take, the carrot or the stick. Disney has been trying with a little carrot (member events, park lounges, park discounts) and now they are going to try with a big stick (trading restrictions, booking window restrictions, etc).

None of these changes are designed to benefit members. Any benefit to members is just a side effect.

With the stick approach, Disney has shown they are perfectly happy following the same (sleazy) timeshare model as everyone else does.

 

[DougEMG]

One thing I am still interested in seeing is if there is going to be any balancing of points being traded in and out of a resort based on the points at the resort that can actually be traded.

The updates to the POS don't seem to mention anything around that, so as a resale owner at Riviera I would be worried that the entire resort books up at 7 months from other owners, leaving the resale owner unable to use their points anywhere.

 

[disneynutz]

I personally think that DVC needs to do a better job at making all the resorts a desirable place to stay. Obviously people will prefer the convenience of certain locations but what sticks out to me is how many people avoid staying at SSR like the plague. Hopefully the long overdue refurb will help make it more current, but what would entice people who own SSR points to stay there most of the time?

You may think that people avoid SSR but it books up like all of the resorts so in Disney's world it's a win.

Bill

 

[crvetter]

You may think that people avoid SSR but it books up like all of the resorts so in Disney's world it's a win.

Bill

Correct but that isn't the argument Disney is making, nor what was being referenced really. Their argument is certain resorts (don't know which for sure) are booked predominately late as a fall back option. Not really the desired resort. Because purchases of those points are paying less than direct with little to no intention of staying there. Simply because they are the cheapest on resale. This is exactly what I was told was the reason for the change when I asked why they would ever shoot their product in the foot. They told me this and they felt the way it currently operates wasn't the intention. It's about Disney satisfying and pandering to future Direct buyers not if old resorts are sold out. If an old resort is skewing the system a way a new Direct buyer wants it is in Disney's best interest to fix that because it effects their ability to sell new resorts.

As I said I don't agree with their statement. But they are trying to convince people buying direct is better and I'm assuming that potential direct owners (and current) are saying why pay you 180 for 100 points when I can pay 90-100 for 200 points and book a 1 bedroom over a studio at 7 months in the room I want. I think this is exactly what some peoples choice is and a free market allows this to happen. Disney is attempting to remove the free market aspect to a certain degree by redefining the rules.