Discussion in 'DVC-Mousecellaneous' started by 3 Hobbits 2 Disney, Jan 6, 2019.
Very apt and yet disturbing analogy.
I could definitely see that. It's sort of how they let resale buyers add points direct to gain access to full member benefits. So many people (including myself) "added on for the perks." Which was essentially paying X dollars for the full membership.
You may be only wildly guessing, but your guess makes perfect sense.
It makes wicked sense, actually and sadly. Very well thought out. Apparently it makes you the second one to think of it unfortunately.
I've decided to wait and see how the resale prices of our contracts at BCV and VGF will fare as the dust settles on this thing. I am disappointed in Disney as they make yet another move toward replacing Mickey with Scrooge McDuck, and the potential ease of re-selling our contracts was definitely part of our decision-making when we bought, but it is what it is. Presumably we can still trade into all of the upcoming properties while we still own our piece of the DVC, and when it comes time to sell I'm still hoping that the draw of staying at the BC or the GF (and being able to trade into the original 14) will be enough to warrant reasonable resale prices.
We knew when we bought that Disney could change some of the rules, I just wish it had all remained theoretical. I had a lot more faith in their corporate culture when we bought than we do now or ever will again, but I'm just going to close my eyes and enjoy what I can as long as I can. Disney doesn't need me to be the cheerleader I once was for them, which is a good thing, because that's over. I do wonder, however, if they will ever actually kill the golden goose or if they are going to get away with just strangling it forever. How much longer will people continue to pour through their gates in search of the magic I know I once felt?
Until the economy hits the skids.
If you read DVCNew website, DVC direct sales have been slowly decreasing this year and especailly this winter, wonder if they think resale contracts have something to do with this, hence the changes.
But this doesn't explain the 2020 point chart, probably makes it harder to sell CCV points, because now the studios and 1 bedrooms cost more per night.
Just don't get it.
The 2020 point chart is tied into the new exchange, nothing to do with current sales or in the interests of current members. It's somehow all about ensuring that new Riviera and Rehab direct owners can trade into our system.
New members buying direct, probably can't see a 2020 point chart without a deposit on a direct contract. Man are they in for a surprise!
Oh yes, cause it's not like they are taking the 2020 chart out during the sales pitch. Even if they did it would be to point out the now even lower AKV value rooms
The point charts are available publicly.
I've been saying the same thing for three years or so now. Disney now often uses the phrase "industry standard" as a way of touting a new rule, cost increase, change in perks, or even furnishings in a DVC room. It wasn't all that long ago when Disney set the standard. That acknowledgement has become a conscious philosophical-business choice as model. I know they're banking on people still buying the magic. Short term, I think they're safe. Long term, I don't know they're engendering the same sort of devotion from the current and future generations.
Sure, but most direct buyers are so high on pixie dust they’re not going looking for it.
Yes they are, if you know where to look for them. But DVC doesn't give them out to non-members.
That's true, they probably wouldn't voluntarily produce it, although I've never asked (I should have the last time I went for my 3 fastpasses just to see what would happen. heh.) I doubt it would matter anyway, though. Most direct buyers barely even know what they're buying or are aware of the resale option at all to begin with.
I definitely think this is a longer term strategy on their part. It is the beginning of resales having home resort privilege only. Once the 14 existing resorts expire they will be resold in the same manner would be my guess. And since resales at Riviera can’t trade out they need to cap trade in which could be the reason for the 1/19 change to resales.
What's the "industry standard" for trading within a system of timeshares for resale buyers? Do other timeshares also allow booking at home resort only?
That might be a really good topic for spinning off a new thread!
I can add a data point from my other points-based timeshare, Worldmark the Club (WMtC or simply WM). As a club, WM started roughly the same time as DVC but without designating a home resort or having ending/expiration dates. They made serious changes in 2006, after their developer unit was taken over by Wyndham, to "curb the resale problem."
Basic nature of the new 2006 Developer sales plan, "Worldmark with TravelShare!": Create a new club-layer that wraps around the existing club. The new club layer ("TravelShare") offers certain exchange benefits that have been stripped from the post-2006 resale transactions and some new benefits ("free" corporate-level RCI membership, special concierge travel services, etc.). The new benefits layer also introduces tiered benefits based on the number of qualified points owned. The new club layer has its own MF structure added on top of the core club dues. (So new developer contracts pay two distinct dues: one for the core club and one for the new benefits layer.) The new layer can only be obtained through developer sales and does not transfer in resale.
Post 2006 for existing owners: All existing owners were grandfathered to maintain all existing "exchange" rights across the current affiliations. That is, as an owner, I maintained my right to book any WMtC location, any WM South Pacific location (a different but related system servicing South Pacific), any Vacation International location (an outside club with which WM had formed a direct exchange affiliation), etc. I maintain my right to enroll my WM points in exchange systems including RCI and/or II at 'individual responsibility' levels of membership. I don't really lose anything ... but do not gain any of the new TravelShare benefits unless I choose to "upgrade" my account with a minimum add-on purchase of new points under the new plan. Similar to DVC, all points owned are tagged with an attribute designating their qualification status ("WM+A," reflecting Worldmark plus Affiliations). FWIW, WM+A points are eligible for an "upgrade" ($$$) to new 2006+ developer point status. If I sell my points, they lose their "+A" status.
Post 2006 for new resale transactions: Resale points are tagged "WM" and may book all core WMtC property inventory but are ineligible for reservations requiring a newly coined "The Exchange Network (TEN)" system of managing affiliations. Thus, resale could not "exchange" to WM South Pacific locations and are not eligible for exchange to Wyndham properties (a feature added after the 2006 changes; not sure if resale may book Vacation International locations??) We are told post-2006 resale points are ineligible for "upgrade" ($$$) to the new 2006+ developer point status. (Not sure if this is truly enforced at the sales table.)
Post 2006 Developer sales: New developer sales include both the core club (WM) and the new TravelShare (TS) benefits layer: WM+TS. The owner pays extra dues and receive their "free" RCI membership through TravelShare, access to multiple direct-exchange affiliations (WM<>WM South Pacific, WM<>Wyndham, etc.), a dedicated phone line for reservations, invitations to special TravelShare events, special check-in lines at each resort (based on new tiered membership levels), etc. Lots of pressure is added based on your new "tiered membership level," oh, my!
When an owners of "WM+TS" sell their account it is tripped of "+TS" and becomes simply "WM" and the resulting resale owner pays only the core club dues.
FWIW, we've owned WM since 2000. Our contract originated in 1990 and has lots of grandfathered features. We don't plan to either sell it or upgrade. We quit entertaining thoughts of increasing our account size soon after review of the 2006 changes. So the changes basically put us into "hunker down" state. We've been OK.
EDITED TO ADD: One curious outcome of the 2006+ changes has been a completely confusing Resort Map. Every location is color coded and ties to the following legend:
My account (WM+A) is eligible for all except for the bright green "Wyndham Hotels and Resorts (TravelShare members only)." A basic WM account (lacking +A or +TS) is eligible for the Red dot locations only, I believe, but might also receive the darkest Purple dot affiliates.
The colorful resort map sure makes a powerful statement at the developer sales table: "You want all these locations right? Gotta buy from me, today."
This all sounds really complicated, but it appears newly minted resale buyers still have more options than a "home resort." Maybe with only one (perhaps two in the not so distant future) property, the "new DVD timeshare" (sorry, I can't call it Club any more) cannot allow exchanges until there are more within the new system. For the time being at least, it seems really restrictive to be able to book just 1 resort, which I guess isn't too different from when original OKW went on sale. By the way, was there any "promise" or plan of new additions when DVD was selling OKW?
Ah, but originally DVD wasn't selling OKW. They were selling DVC which had only one property. The property we now call OKW was simply called, Disney Vacation Club, until the second property was announced.
I think a 'club' is defined more by its membership program than its network of properties. After all, even as children, we used to form 'clubs' around our backyard treehouse. The 'club' might only have held one property ("the treehouse in Billy's yard) but accessing that treehouse required you be a member of the 'club' however the club was defined and enforced. (Enforced? Ah, I'm thinking of the original Club 33 at Disneyland on this note!! )
Thus, we might become more annoyed over Disney renting rooms to 'outsiders' (people not member of our club) than to changing the number of properties included in the club?? A question of "who has access" rather than "how many <x> can I access"??
Separate names with a comma.