New DVC Member - Perspective of a Direct Buyer

[kboo]

Also - Poly bungalows booked in June ... weddings and honeymoons, perhaps?

 

[disneynutz]

Could be that Disney likes the bungalows for cash guests and VIP's.

Bill

 

[skier_pete]

This is interesting, and I'm happy to go off track with you!
I took a look at the bungalow/cabin points - CCV GVs and cabins are significantly less in points than Poly. One would argue that they don't have the pizzazz of the Poly bungalows. But rates are not *completely* out of line with GVs at other, older resorts, especially for shorter stays. The CCV GV is less than the GV at either BLT or VGF, so they're another option for GV near MK. Considering how quickly GVs seem to get booked, I am not sure I would second guess DVC's planning at this point.

Going back to OP's post (ha, attempt at getting on track?) - if you bought at CCV for 1BR-2BR, I think you'd be ok. It seems like studio availabilty IS kept low by DVC and for a purpose - with 1BR at almost 2x the points, wouldn't they want you to spend your points on 1BRs, see how nice they are compared to studios, and decide you want to add on/buy an additional contract? Selling a studio gets you in the door, and upselling the 1BR+ makes you add on points, whether direct or resale.

I agree that if you bought CCV with the intention of booking 1 BR or 2BR you are probably fine. And I would also agree that the cabin prices are slightly more reasonable than the Poly, though they still have the problem of being the cost of a GV without the ability to sleep 12 (or more than 8 for that matter). I'm not saying they won't rent, what I'm saying is their point value is disproportionate to what DVC buyers are buying for. Because the price has inflated so much over the last 10 years (10 years ago it would cost you $15,000 for 150 points, today it's $27,000 for the same buy in) more owners are buying with the intention of studios than ever before. But DVC isn't adjusting demand, or at least they didn't at GF and they especially were even worse at CCV.

Since the average contract is 140, this doesn't preclude that everyone is buying 140 points, but if someone buys a 500 point contract, that means NINE people have to buy 100 point contracts to make the average contract size 140, or even 4 people buying 50 point contracts. The point being that in all likelyhood >50 % of buyers are buying < 140 points, probably upwards of 60- 65% are buying 140 point or smaller contracts. Those people aren't buying those contracts because they want one night in a cabin once a year. 9 % points in studios - about 20 % points in one bedrooms - 50% or more of all contracts < 140 points - it's a real potential mess of a situation.

 

[ELMC]

Since the average contract is 140, this doesn't preclude that everyone is buying 140 points, but if someone buys a 500 point contract, that means NINE people have to buy 100 point contracts to make the average contract size 140, or even 4 people buying 50 point contracts. The point being that in all likelyhood >50 % of buyers are buying < 140 points, probably upwards of 60- 65% are buying 140 point or smaller contracts. Those people aren't buying those contracts because they want one night in a cabin once a year. 9 % points in studios - about 20 % points in one bedrooms - 50% or more of all contracts < 140 points - it's a real potential mess of a situation.

If everyone buying DVC at CCV is buying with the intent of staying there, then yes, I completely agree. But keep in mind that the majority of DVC buyers are being sold on the concept of DVC, and are then buying whatever resort happens to be the current offering. So while I agree with your premise that studios are the big draw for DVC and mathematically speaking CCV is problematic, I think that there are other factors at work that will mitigate this problem.

 

[kboo]

I agree that if you bought CCV with the intention of booking 1 BR or 2BR you are probably fine. And I would also agree that the cabin prices are slightly more reasonable than the Poly, though they still have the problem of being the cost of a GV without the ability to sleep 12 (or more than 8 for that matter). I'm not saying they won't rent, what I'm saying is their point value is disproportionate to what DVC buyers are buying for. Because the price has inflated so much over the last 10 years (10 years ago it would cost you $15,000 for 150 points, today it's $27,000 for the same buy in) more owners are buying with the intention of studios than ever before. But DVC isn't adjusting demand, or at least they didn't at GF and they especially were even worse at CCV.

Since the average contract is 140, this doesn't preclude that everyone is buying 140 points, but if someone buys a 500 point contract, that means NINE people have to buy 100 point contracts to make the average contract size 140, or even 4 people buying 50 point contracts. The point being that in all likelyhood >50 % of buyers are buying < 140 points, probably upwards of 60- 65% are buying 140 point or smaller contracts. Those people aren't buying those contracts because they want one night in a cabin once a year. 9 % points in studios - about 20 % points in one bedrooms - 50% or more of all contracts < 140 points - it's a real potential mess of a situation.

Granted, the responses here are from self-selecting posters here at the DIS:
https://www.disboards.com/threads/so-how-many-points-do-you-own.3601222/

When you say that average contract is 140, is that for Poly, or across all DVC, or something else? If it's across all DVC, remember too that there are lots of people buying add-ons of 25-50 points (I am one of them). I do think that for new buyers, whether direct or resale, something on the order of 150 points or less is probably a pretty common starting point. It's enough to get a week in a studio or even a 1BR in low season, and Disney (and we) do a pretty good job of selling add ons, and additional home resorts, etc.

 

[skier_pete]

If everyone buying DVC at CCV is buying with the intent of staying there, then yes, I completely agree. But keep in mind that the majority of DVC buyers are being sold on the concept of DVC, and are then buying whatever resort happens to be the current offering. So while I agree with your premise that studios are the big draw for DVC and mathematically speaking CCV is problematic, I think that there are other factors at work that will mitigate this problem.

BTW - I realize this is pretty off topic, but I'm going to stick with it...you are right some will want to move, but if I am an unsuspecting buyer and I buy points at CCV, then I want to book a trips in mid-October, but I wait 2 days after my 11-month window and it's gone, then I say "Oh I'll just book somewhere else at 7 months" but at 7 months everything is gone but SSR, having paid $175 a point, am I going to be a very happy owner? Look back 3 years to VGF owners being extremely unhappy about a similar situation, and I'm sure their still not happy about it, but they've had to accept it.

Granted, the responses here are from self-selecting posters here at the DIS:
https://www.disboards.com/threads/so-how-many-points-do-you-own.3601222/

When you say that average contract is 140, is that for Poly, or across all DVC, or something else? If it's across all DVC, remember too that there are lots of people buying add-ons of 25-50 points (I am one of them). I do think that for new buyers, whether direct or resale, something on the order of 150 points or less is probably a pretty common starting point. It's enough to get a week in a studio or even a 1BR in low season, and Disney (and we) do a pretty good job of selling add ons, and additional home resorts, etc.

That data is solid - DVCNews.com publishes sales data every month, so you can divide the # of points sold by the # of contracts. I've been watching the data for a few years, and the number of points/contract average has been fairly consistent, and if anything has been dropping a little bit, but it's pretty consistently 140-150 points. This includes since the Poly went on sale. Now, a lot of current members will add on small contracts (50-100 points) at new resorts, but that doesn't change the fact that a large percentage of contracts sold are less than 140 points to keep the average that low. As I pointed out - one 500 point contract takes a bunch of smaller contracts to off-set it, unless they are selling a ton of 25 point contracts now with the resale market blocking member perks.

 

[huskerfanatic7]

anyone know the reasoning behind Disney making only studios at Poly?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

anyone know the reasoning behind Disney making only studios at Poly?

Highest occupancy they could provide to take over share of Poly operating costs.

(That means I don't really know but.......)

 

[ELMC]

anyone know the reasoning behind Disney making only studios at Poly?

My best guess is that it was the least expensive way to convert existing Poly buildings to DVC. They essentially kept the same shell and just replaced the interiors. That's a lot less expensive than knocking down walls, putting in full kitchens, etc.

Come to think of it, the selling price for Poly is even more ridiculously inflated (my opinion) when you consider that they didn't actually have to build the buildings for close to 80% of the points. I love going to Disney World, but it's getting harder and harder to ignore the many ways they try to stick it to their guests on a daily basis. Yeah, I know, I'm a little jaded, sorry.

 

[skier_pete]

anyone know the reasoning behind Disney making only studios at Poly?

Main reason - Poly was constructed modularly out of cement and steel. The rooms were stacked/slotted in place, making it impossible to knock out the interior walls. So Disney's only options were to tear the buildings to the ground or leave the rooms as is...and build them all into studios. (Note that they decided to go with the "knock building to the ground" option at Bay Lake Tower when they ripped out the garden tower wing.) They could have chosen to make "1-bedrooms" out of the connecting rooms, but still would have had the problem that the rooms would have had only the single door to connect the "bedroom" to the rest of the room, and they probably decided it wouldn't have looked really great. Since there is almost always a shortage of studios in the DVC system, they probably decided that it wouldn't hurt them overall to just have studio rooms. Turns out they were right as it's sold just fine - and if you paid attention to my other posts I agree- Disney shouldn't stop with 1- and 2-bedrooms, but the sales system for DVC now is such they should be building a high % of studios - certainly not 100%, but not 9% like CCV. Studios should make up at least 20-25 % of points at a resort, but now my off-topic post is getting off-topic in another direction. Back to the Poly: There was originally plans to build a tower with 1- and 2-bedrooms at the Poly, but that was scrapped/delayed, partly because they wanted to promote the bungalows. There's still rumors that could happen, but it looks like after CCV they are going to CBR and then next on the rumored list is a second contemporary tower. (Definitely that one is "blue sky" right now.)

For pictures of the modular construction this is the best link I could find. (And boy are we WAYYY off topic now!)

http://www.imagineeringdisney.com/blog/2012/7/22/wdw-construction-polynesian-village-resort.html

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Main reason - Poly was constructed modularly out of cement and steel. The rooms were stacked/slotted in place, making it impossible to knock out the interior walls. So Disney's only options were to tear the buildings to the ground or leave the rooms as is...and build them all into studios. (Note that they decided to go with the "knock building to the ground" option at Bay Lake Tower when they ripped out the garden tower wing.) They could have chosen to make "1-bedrooms" out of the connecting rooms, but still would have had the problem that the rooms would have had only the single door to connect the "bedroom" to the rest of the room, and they probably decided it wouldn't have looked really great. Since there is almost always a shortage of studios in the DVC system, they probably decided that it wouldn't hurt them overall to just have studio rooms. Turns out they were right as it's sold just fine - and if you paid attention to my other posts I agree- Disney shouldn't stop with 1- and 2-bedrooms, but the sales system for DVC now is such they should be building a high % of studios - certainly not 100%, but not 9% like CCV. Studios should make up at least 20-25 % of points at a resort, but now my off-topic post is getting off-topic in another direction. Back to the Poly: There was originally plans to build a tower with 1- and 2-bedrooms at the Poly, but that was scrapped/delayed, partly because they wanted to promote the bungalows. There's still rumors that could happen, but it looks like after CCV they are going to CBR and then next on the rumored list is a second contemporary tower. (Definitely that one is "blue sky" right now.)

For pictures of the modular construction this is the best link I could find. (And boy are we WAYYY off topic now!)

http://www.imagineeringdisney.com/blog/2012/7/22/wdw-construction-polynesian-village-resort.html

That was the original construction. These 3 long houses converted for DVC were built in the 80's. More than one person reported they viewed completely gutted longhouses - i.e., all walls removed and you could see end to end.

 

[skier_pete]

That was the original construction. These 3 long houses converted for DVC were built in the 80's. More than one person reported they viewed completely gutted longhouses - i.e., all walls removed and you could see end to end.

Huh...I didn't know that! The it's a good question as to why they did it that way. My guess is maybe they thought the overall DVC system needed more studios? I was really surprised that they didn't put more studios in CCV.

 

[amymgould]

How are the costs from these airports? I have thought about doing a drive (I am on LI) if the it is cost effective.

I'm not sure compared to where you normally fly out of but if you can fly JetBlue I think it's extremely cost effective with the direct flight. I could've gotten a slightly cheaper flight the day before Easter but I would've been traveling ALL day...long layovers,etc. Time is money, right?

 

[nydisneydad]

Well now that we're completely off topic...

From Long Island I think you'd be hard pressed to get a cheaper flight than taking JetBlue from LaGuardia (their northeast hub) to Orlando, and it's quite a bit less travel time to boot since that's the closest major airport to you.

 

[glencoe]

Well now that we're completely off topic...

From Long Island I think you'd be hard pressed to get a cheaper flight than taking JetBlue from LaGuardia (their northeast hub) to Orlando, and it's quite a bit less travel time to boot since that's the closest major airport to you.

You would be surprised...the cost can be cheaper at other airports "off the island" and considerably worth the drive too!
Right now I am trying to get flights in Feb and nothing is under a high $400....sorry off topic!!

 

[msjprincess]

You would be surprised...the cost can be cheaper at other airports "off the island" and considerably worth the drive too!
Right now I am trying to get flights in Feb and nothing is under a high $400....sorry off topic!!

Yep. We ended up driving this past President's week because airfare from the metro NY are was insane. I couldn't find anything under $600 and we're a family of 5.

Jetblue hasn't been the cheapest for me in years. Especially now that they have their tiered fares. For or August trip we're flying SWA out of ISP and into LGA. Originally we were flying in and out of BWI. I check every day and switch around the flights when the price drop. One of the many reasons I love SWA.

I'm in western Suffolk, Stewart airport is about 2 hours away. It can be worth it if the price is right.

 

[eyeshadow]

I've been going through this thread, as I am going through a resale Poly now. It's amazing how much the prices have dropped since May. I was almost enticed to purchase on our trip back in June. I'm glad we held off.

 

[icydog]

I've been going through this thread, as I am going through a resale Poly now. It's amazing how much the prices have dropped since May. I was almost enticed to purchase on our trip back in June. I'm glad we held off.

I’m a little mixed up. Are you saying it’s cheaper to buy resale now or that the cost from the developers (DVC) has gone down?

 

[stlrod]

OP, there is nothing wrong with buying direct if it is right for you. I am a very experiencd traveler and understand well how to get top value out of a travel dollar (Top tier or next with 4 hotel programs, southwest companion etc.) Until recently, I owned 3 dvc contracts beginning with the earliest being purchased in 2001. I just purchased 275 combined CCV/Poly points direct and have easily rented out over 500 of those points most at $18 per point in less than 2 weeks (I'm stripping my own contracts since I will not likely use them in the next two years.) I'm not sure that owners at resorts available at drastically lower prices on the resale market would be able to command these rental rates for their points. When all is said and done, I will likely have paid about $136-$138 per point for these contracts after considering the maintenance fees I will pay for the next two years. Time will tell but my guess is the price on these contracts on the resale market will be at least around that number in two years But most importantly, I got the resorts I wanted without any negotiating, waiting for ROFR, etc., in the increments I wanted for each CCV and Poly while getting the maximum incentive credit allowed and for a longer period of time. It seems to me buying direct gets a bad rap on these boards. It was right for me and that's all that counts.

 

[eyeshadow]

We didn't see very many Poly resale contracts back in June, and the ones we saw were about $150 p/p. It seems like there are more Poly resales available now then there were five months ago at a better price. We are going through resale now with a great contract for far below 150 p/p.