Point Chart preferences, if they ever adjust for units...

[havoc315]

I would think the members of the Poly HOA would likely object to subsidizing the bungalows by increasing costs to the studios. I think the demographic for Poly buyers doesn't include those wanting huge spaces. If they did, they would buy elsewhere.

Or many members of the HOA association might be thrilled with a reduction in the point cost of the Bungalows, making it more affordable for them to actually use them.

If, for example, given the choice of 2 studios for a week every year, or a bungalow every 2 years...
Some would take the annual studios. But some would jump on the bungalow every other year.

 

[AliceIn]

1. I’m sure some Poly buyers are drawn in because of the Bungalows.

If these were always occupied, I might think this is true. I don't think the bungalows are popular.

 

[havoc315]

If these were always occupied, I might think this is true. I don't think the bungalows are popular.

Because they are overpriced..
If a studio was 60 points a night, it wouldn’t be polymer. If a bungalow was 75 points per night, they would all book within 1 minute of the 11 month mark.

It’s a matter of setting the price point where supply = demand.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It's simple to me - it should be adjusted based on demand. From there I'd figure out what we would or wouldn't do for changes. That means both seasonal requirements for points and unit size point requirements. I'd also expect it to be multi year because of the need to see what they shifts actually do produce.

 

[EYL]

Because they are overpriced..
If a studio was 60 points a night, it wouldn’t be polymer. If a bungalow was 75 points per night, they would all book within 1 minute of the 11 month mark.

It’s a matter of setting the price point where supply = demand.

I'm not quite sure about the supply and demand. I bought resale PVB knowing that a studio can have up to 5 people. My immediate family is only 3 so my demand is a studio. There is no way for me to justify a "normal" vacation to stay in a bungalow even at 3x the points. Obviously, I can take those "special" vacations and bring family as a treat in a bungalow, but those aren't in my plans. I have to think that others who bought into PVB thought the same. It may make it more attractive for those to trade into at 7 months, but it doesn't benefit this PVB owner at all.

 

[havoc315]

I'm not quite sure about the supply and demand. I bought resale PVB knowing that a studio can have up to 5 people. My immediate family is only 3 so my demand is a studio. There is no way for me to justify a "normal" vacation to stay in a bungalow even at 3x the points. Obviously, I can take those "special" vacations and bring family as a treat in a bungalow, but those aren't in my plans. I have to think that others who bought into PVB thought the same. It may make it more attractive for those to trade into at 7 months, but it doesn't benefit this PVB owner at all.

That’s true of all 2BR, 3BR, cabins, bungalows,etc.

But at the right price point, demand increases. If the Bungalow was only 20 points more than a studio... then nearly every studio-user would clamor for a Bungalow, even just for 3-4 people.

And at the current point level, they don’t really ever fill up.
So there is a price point somewhere in between where they fill up at about the same rate as studios.

Right now, the bungalows are 5x the price of a studio.
If the price was 3x instead of 5x... don’t you think that would entice some PVB owners maybe to combine points and share a bungalow... or save up their points and invite family for a special trip.
Wouldn’t you be more likely to consider a “special” Bungalow trip with family if it was the price of 3 studios instead of 5 studios?

Put another way... imagine a PVB owner with 300 points.
Right now, even if they bank and borrow 3 years worth of points, they still wouldn’t have 1000 points for a week in a bungalow.
But what if they were 600 points instead? Now an owner of 300 points could easily do a bungalow every other year.

There are only 20 bungalows.350 studios.
How many bungalows are usually vacant in a given week? 3? 5? 10?
Let’s say it’s 7 currently vacant at a time. Don’t think dropping from 1,000 points to 600 points would get 1 out of every 50 PVB owners to consider the bungalow now?

Put another way... would the drop from 1000 to 600 get you to do 1 week at a bungalow 1 time during your 50 years of ownership? If all those PVB owners go from never doing a bungalow, to doing it once every 50 years... that would fill up the bungalows. (And some from doing it once every 10 years to once every 5 years, etc)
Of course, we know the bungalows don’t sit completely empty 52 weeks per year. There are indeed already some PVB owners who make use of the bungalows. And simple economics, the more you reduce the price, the more people will use them.

 

[EYL]

That’s true of all 2BR, 3BR, cabins, bungalows,etc.

But at the right price point, demand increases. If the Bungalow was only 20 points more than a studio... then nearly every studio-user would clamor for a Bungalow, even just for 3-4 people.

And at the current point level, they don’t really ever fill up.
So there is a price point somewhere in between where they fill up at about the same rate as studios.

Right now, the bungalows are 5x the price of a studio.
If the price was 3x instead of 5x... don’t you think that would entice some PVB owners maybe to combine points and share a bungalow... or save up their points and invite family for a special trip.
Wouldn’t you be more likely to consider a “special” Bungalow trip with family if it was the price of 3 studios instead of 5 studios?

Put another way... imagine a PVB owner with 300 points.
Right now, even if they bank and borrow 3 years worth of points, they still wouldn’t have 1000 points for a week in a bungalow.
But what if they were 600 points instead? Now an owner of 300 points could easily do a bungalow every other year.

There are only 20 bungalows.350 studios.
How many bungalows are usually vacant in a given week? 3? 5? 10?
Let’s say it’s 7 currently vacant at a time. Don’t think dropping from 1,000 points to 600 points would get 1 out of every 50 PVB owners to consider the bungalow now?

Put another way... would the drop from 1000 to 600 get you to do 1 week at a bungalow 1 time during your 50 years of ownership? If all those PVB owners go from never doing a bungalow, to doing it once every 50 years... that would fill up the bungalows. (And some from doing it once every 10 years to once every 5 years, etc)
Of course, we know the bungalows don’t sit completely empty 52 weeks per year. There are indeed already some PVB owners who make use of the bungalows. And simple economics, the more you reduce the price, the more people will use them.

If you drop the bungalows enough, yes, it may be a stronger demand. Maybe 1 out of every 50 PVB owner as you predict, but the other 49 would be upset because to get to that point it will be at a cost to all the studios. You'd have the most expensive studios in DVC when it gets to a competitive comparison. And to do so is to fix a problem that Disney created. Personally, I would look for cheaper Studios elsewhere and would totally feel bait and switched. Don't get me wrong...I expected fluctuation in points. Just not at the level that you are describing.

That said, I agree with @AliceIn. Even though in your poll, the responses for "Prefer cheapest possible studios at home resort to maximize nights, even if it limits other options" currently stand at 33.9% for the general DVC ownership, I predict this to be higher for the owners at PVB. If you entice 1 out of every 50 PVB owner, expect 49 to pay more for the studios...begrudgingly. Expect some to not even be able to afford to stay in PVB studios for 1 week per year.

 

[SleeplessInTO]

Im pretty happy with how things are now. I can get a 1 bedroom almost anywhere within 7 months or less, most times of the year. Happy not to be fighting over studios. Willing to pay a bit more for that 1 bedroom availability.

 

[zavandor]

I’d vote for things being based on supply and demand and adjusting within the current rules.

I prefer things adjust by unit size for seasonal demand so studios in the fall cost more than studios in summer.

Same with all other sizes. It’d also like to see studios back to only 4, 1 bedrooms to 5, and 2 bedrooms to the 8 or 9.

Agree 1000% with this. Also, build more studios in future resorts.
The option I would vote is not available: if studio points are rebalanced with other unit sizes I will sue DVC.

 

[havoc315]

If you drop the bungalows enough, yes, it may be a stronger demand. Maybe 1 out of every 50 PVB owner as you predict, but the other 49 would be upset because to get to that point it will be at a cost to all the studios. You'd have the most expensive studios in DVC when it gets to a competitive comparison. And to do so is to fix a problem that Disney created. Personally, I would look for cheaper Studios elsewhere and would totally feel bait and switched. Don't get me wrong...I expected fluctuation in points. Just not at the level that you are describing.

That said, I agree with @AliceIn. Even though in your poll, the responses for "Prefer cheapest possible studios at home resort to maximize nights, even if it limits other options" currently stand at 33.9% for the general DVC ownership, I predict this to be higher for the owners at PVB. If you entice 1 out of every 50 PVB owner, expect 49 to pay more for the studios...begrudgingly. Expect some to not even be able to afford to stay in PVB studios for 1 week per year.

Well, studios at PVB are already the highest. With the rebalance, studios would go up at all properties. But because of the 350/20 studio/bungalow ratio, points at PVB wouldn’t need to go up very much to bring down the bungalows dramatically.

Estimate ... increase studios by 8 points per night, would let you bring the bungalows down by 150 points.

You act like not a single PVB owner has ever booked a bungalow and it would take a massive drop to change that.

What I’ve found in this poll and elsewhere, lots of people like to make assumptions about “most DVC owners,” they assume most DVC owners are just like them. Reality is, there is massive diversity in why we buy, how we use our points, etc.

I assure you, there are already PVB owners who travel with extended family and book 2 studios for the same trip, who would gladly book a bungalow if it was just a tiny bit cheaper. There are those who only travel to Disney every 2-3 years, and look to use their points for the most luxurious experience
There are people who very much change their travel plans over the decades...
Starting with their small immediate family, 2 studio trips per year... but 20 years later, their kids have spouses, grand children. Instead of 2 studios per year, 1 bungalow every 2-3 years makes more sense.
Not to mention, more affordable bungalows would increase the re-sale value of PVB — there would be more demand from those looking to buy specifically for the bungalows.

Now, I don’t have access to the exact vacancy rates for the bungalows, booking patterns, etc. Buf I do know economics. If you drop the price of the bungalows even minimally, you’ll get an increase in demand. Question is how much of an increase is necessary in order to balance the studios and bungalows. I don’t know the answer to that.
Id imagine it would be something in between a 5 point studio increase with 90 point bungalow cut and a 11 point studio increase and 200 point bungalow cut.
That’s purely an educated guess. Could be even less, could be slightly more.

 

[AliceIn]

What I’ve found in this poll and elsewhere, lots of people like to make assumptions about “most DVC owners,” they assume most DVC owners are just like them. Reality is, there is massive diversity in why we buy, how we use our points, etc.

My guess is that the people booking the bungalows and grand villas every single year are the whales of DVC - they are the smaller minority of owners. I know a lot of DVC owners, most of my family has owned since the beginning. I'm the last to buy in. What everyone was looking for was a guaranteed fun vacation every single year, not every three years a huge splurge.

I don't see why the people who bought in for the studios should have to subsidize the people who want the fabulous places.

 

[AliceIn]

Maybe a better way to balance it out is to increase the number of points you need to stay at a resort other than your home resort. This might make availability at 7 months much better than it is now, too, as fewer people might jump on rooms at other resorts.

 

[havoc315]

My guess is that the people booking the bungalows and grand villas every single year are the whales of DVC - they are the smaller minority of owners. I know a lot of DVC owners, most of my family has owned since the beginning. I'm the last to buy in. What everyone was looking for was a guaranteed fun vacation every single year, not every three years a huge splurge.

I don't see why the people who bought in for the studios should have to subsidize the people who want the fabulous places.

I believe you’re wrong about “most.” There is a huge diversity of ownership.

But studio owners shouldn’t subsidize 1BR+ units. And 1BR+ units shouldn’t subsidize studios. It should be equally spread out.

Right now, 1BR+ users are heavily subsidizing the studio users.

 

[AliceIn]

I believe you’re wrong about “most.” There is a huge diversity of ownership.

But studio owners shouldn’t subsidize 1BR+ units. And 1BR+ units shouldn’t subsidize studios. It should be equally spread out.

Right now, 1BR+ users are heavily subsidizing the studio users.

My home resort has no 1BR or 3BR users. The small fry at PVB would be subsidizing the the people who probably don't care about money or points.

 

[havoc315]

My home resort has no 1BR or 3BR users. The small fry at PVB would be subsidizing the the people who probably don't care about money or points.

No, the current math — Bungalow users subsidize the studio users, by an extreme degree.
As I said, I believe all users should get equal value of their points.

For example, checked cash prices for a week in July. A studio renter would get $28 of value per point. A bungalow renter gets only $20 of value per point.
I’d much rather see everyone get $23-$25 of value per point.

 

[AliceIn]

For example, checked cash prices for a week in July. A studio renter would get $28 of value per point. A bungalow renter gets only $20 of value per point.
I’d much rather see everyone get $23-$25 of value per point.

That's where we differ. I'd prefer to see a family get more nights in their studio on their 150 point contract than I would the big spender with 1500. Owners at PVB are a different demographic than the other resorts that are not mostly studios.

 

[havoc315]

That's where we differ. I'd prefer to see a family get more nights in their studio on their 150 point contract than I would the big spender with 1500. Owners at PVB are a different demographic than the other resorts that are not mostly studios.

i think there should be an equitable balance. I think everyone should have an equal opportunity. I don’t think it should be unfairly discriminatory against anyone.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

No, the current math — Bungalow users subsidize the studio users, by an extreme degree.
As I said, I believe all users should get equal value of their points.

For example, checked cash prices for a week in July. A studio renter would get $28 of value per point. A bungalow renter gets only $20 of value per point.
I’d much rather see everyone get $23-$25 of value per point.

I don't see that cash prices set by Disney has much relationship to point requirements for members. It would be important to potential renters or those paying cash thru Disney reservations but that is all. Cash prices can be changed at any time and they could easily elect to reduce what they charge for the Bungalows. Using that analogy it might be better to state that Disney has too high of a nightly rate on the Bungalows but they can figure that out based on bookings.

 

[AliceIn]

i think there should be an equitable balance. I think everyone should have an equal opportunity. I don’t think it should be unfairly discriminatory against anyone.

You were suggesting that all points be equal - when they really aren't. There are premium features to the larger rooms that make a higher price point equitable. You get a full kitchen, laundry in the unit. Asking the studios to be more equal in price to the larger units just doesn't make sense. You're not getting the same value for the point. The people who bought at PVB for the studios should not be asked to subsidize the more luxurious unit. The points are in no way apples to apples. The people using the two are completely different types of customer as well.

 

[havoc315]

You were suggesting that all points be equal - when they really aren't. There are premium features to the larger rooms that make a higher price point equitable. You get a full kitchen, laundry in the unit. Asking the studios to be more equal in price to the larger units just doesn't make sense. You're not getting the same value for the point. The people who bought at PVB for the studios should not be asked to subsidize the more luxurious unit. The points are in no way apples to apples. The people using the two are completely different types of customer as well.

No. That’s not what I said. Of course a larger unit should be more points.

But let me give you an example...
let’s say a PV standard view was $500 per night, and a PV preferred view was $600 per night...
Would it make sense to charge 18 points per night for the standard view, and 85 points per night for the preferred view?

and conversely, why should people who bought for the bungalows have to subsidize the studios?
My point is nobody should subsidize anybody else. They should be priced in a way where nobody is subsidizing anybody.