Not fully getting the "lock off premium"

[glamdring269]

One thing to keep in mind, and no one is talking about it. If a member books a studio from a lock off unit they just created an”orphan” one bedroom. So it’s logical that studios book first and create an enormous number of “orphan” one bedrooms and reduce the availability of 2br. So it makes sense to charge a premium because these “orphan” rooms need to be sold or rented as well.

But why increase the cost of 1br as well? This would have all looked a lot more rational had the studios gone up and the 1br stayed flat or potentially even decreased to offset.

 

[LBHouse]

But why increase the cost of 1br as well? This would have all looked a lot more rational had the studios gone up and the 1br stayed flat or potentially even decreased to offset.

We don’t have the data to support a claim either way. It’s just guess. Dvc has the data.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

We don’t have the data to support a claim either way. It’s just guess. Dvc has the data.

With online booking we actually do get to see some of the data now and it's been tracked by a few people for a couple of years or more. And that's what is making some people question if all of the reallocation really was demand based.

 

[Dean]

With online booking we actually do get to see some of the data now and it's been tracked by a few people for a couple of years or more. And that's what is making some people question if all of the reallocation really was demand based.

Some but very little. And the have what people want and what they search for as well. But s noted increasing the studio and decreasing the 1 BR does not move people to a 2 BR if that is their goal and that's my guess.

 

[LBHouse]

Sorry, but the availability we see on the booking tool is absolutely not enough data to make a claim that DVC is somehow damaging the property rights of members. Disney (through intermediaries) has a fiduciary responsibility to manage the resorts for the benefit of the membership. I for one don’t think they have even come remotely close to violating that trust. Every other point reallocation has been done to benefit the membership, I see nothing here that makes me doubt that Disney will continue to have the memberships best interest.

I do believe individuals are going to see some changes and maybe some negative changes. To the membership as a whole this is a benefit.

 

[glamdring269]

To the membership as a whole this is a benefit.

How so?

 

[LBHouse]

How so?

Being actively managed is a benefit to the club/membership. Growth is also a benefit. Obviously Disney saw a problem/opportunity with booking patterns and decided to remedy it. We don’t have anywhere near enough data to know what the issue/opportunity was. Until someone shows me otherwise, I will continue to assume Disney is managing the club for the members.

All that’s been shown now, some individuals are negatively affected. There’s anecdotal evidence about increasing the “total points”. Absolutely nothing has been shown to be a system wide membership wide detriment.

 

[Bing Showei]

Obviously Disney saw a problem/opportunity with booking patterns and decided to remedy it.

How so?

 

[Madame]

How so?

As in there wasn’t a problem then DVD jacked up the ppp & lowered the minimum buy-in. They manufactured a problem because they were greedy & not acting in the best interests of the membership & now they’ve decided to « fix » it. Any resulting advantage to DVD is purely coincidental

 

[HookdonWDW]

I just had a wild thought as I was reading this: SSR originally only had one view. Did anyone track points when the change was made from one view to Standard and Preferred Views and see if the points balanced back out? There could be a chance that DVD supplemented points with their inventory, and is now balancing things back out. Especially if they were still holding on to/exercising ROFRing more pn SSR points to sell direct. Part of what we could be seeing is a correction at some resorts.

 

[mmjm]

I'm not following this increase in points, isn't the total # of points at any of the resorts fixed, so they can only change the # of points needed for a particular room, type, and season, but in the end the total number has to be the same?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I'm not following this increase in points, isn't the total # of points at any of the resorts fixed, so they can only change the # of points needed for a particular room, type, and season, but in the end the total number has to be the same?

Yes and no.

Yes, the total points has to balance and remain the same overall.

No - because of the lock-off premium. That means that the 2BR lockoffs are considered 2BR's for the technical point reallocation that leave sthe points the same overall. BUT - they can and do charge more points for the studio and 1BR booked separately than if it were booked as that 2BR that was used in the calculation. That means that they can increase the point requirements for actually booking the rooms even though technically they can stick to the requirements they have for keeping the resort points the same.

 

[mmjm]

ok, thanks

 

[Dean]

As in there wasn’t a problem then DVD jacked up the ppp & lowered the minimum buy-in. They manufactured a problem because they were greedy & not acting in the best interests of the membership & now they’ve decided to « fix » it. Any resulting advantage to DVD is purely coincidental

It doesn't matter how it happened, sales and management are separate entities. IF sales causes a problem, the management company still has to deal with it per the POS and it's principles. People need to get past the idea of how contracts were sold, that members bought with a specific usage intent or what the sales people said, unless one can actually prove they lied on a repeated basis, there is no way to enforce verbal representations. Then the governing principles fall back to the POS.

 

[Madame]

It doesn't matter how it happened, sales and management are separate entities. IF sales causes a problem, the management company still has to deal with it per the POS and it's principles. People need to get past the idea of how contracts were sold, that members bought with a specific usage intent or what the sales people said, unless one can actually prove they lied on a repeated basis, there is no way to enforce verbal representations. Then the governing principles fall back to the POS.

I get that. It just seems DVD created this issue, and yes I know that DVC has to deal with it according to the POS, but it is members who are paying the penalty.

If we accept that DVC is just another timeshare then its par for the course, but they’ll have to accept that hit to their reputation. « DVC just another timeshare » does not have the same ring as « make memories for decades in the magic. »

 

[_auroraborealis_]

DVC has always been just another timeshare, with better marketing.

 

[Dean]

DVC has always been just another timeshare, with better marketing.

Exactly. Plus the parks draw.