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

[Lorana]

It's not psychological. As cash guests, a 1 BR is never twice the price of a studio. It's typically only about 50% higher than a studio. In many cases, guests would find it cheaper to book a 1 BR with cash as opposed to renting DVC points as $20 per point. But a studio is always cheaper with points.

Good question too, what should be more expensive -- 2 studios or a 1 bedroom.
- They typically would have the same SQ footage.
- 2 studios would sleep a lot more people than a 1 bedroom
-2 studios would have 2 bathrooms, a 1 BR only has 1 bathroom
-The 1 BR does have full kitchen and laundry

So it's extra sleep surfaces and extra bathroom vs kitchen/laundry, all in the same approximate square footage.
Seems like a pretty even trade. Doesn't make sense for the 1 BR to be significantly more expensive than 2 studios.

Right, and with the 2 studios, you do also have 2 kitchenettes. No stove, but two small fridges, 2 microwaves, 2 coffee makers, 2 toasters, 2 sinks.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

This is really my “gripe” right here. I don’t disagree that 1BRs should be worth more. But MORE than double the studio cost is ridiculous.

That actually should not be part of the consideration past what they decide on points for sale when the resort goes on sale. At this point the only determiner should be balancing demand and availability. What something is "worth" in DVC points is irrelevant beyond demand and availability.

 

[sethschroeder]

That actually should not be part of the consideration past what they decide on points for sale when the resort goes on sale. At this point the only determiner should be balancing demand and availability. What something is "worth" in DVC points is irrelevant beyond demand and availability.

Well I think "value" and "balance" are somewhat similar. I think there is quite a few people who would be open to getting a 1BR, paying a slight premium, and opening up extra availability in the Studio or 2BR by booking at 1BR.

As it stands the 1BR is the last to book out of the Studio + 1BR combo. You might never balance this but seems like moving points from Studio to 1BR is backwards.

 

[Leight19]

That actually should not be part of the consideration past what they decide on points for sale when the resort goes on sale. At this point the only determiner should be balancing demand and availability. What something is "worth" in DVC points is irrelevant beyond demand and availability.

To me the costs for cash and “worth” are good metric of gauging the demand and availability. While slightly different pools it’s odd to think cash is willing to pay 1.5x whereas dvc is willing to pay 2.0x compared to studio. The discussion of worth is just metric of showing the supply/demand is off for price point of dvc vs cash.

This is further shown in booking patterns where 1BR are typically much easier to book. I could see argument of whether it’s legal or fair to move points between room types to balance demand but I can’t see an argument that indicates current prices don’t have issues with balance.

 

[Lorana]

That actually should not be part of the consideration past what they decide on points for sale when the resort goes on sale. At this point the only determiner should be balancing demand and availability. What something is "worth" in DVC points is irrelevant beyond demand and availability.

Well I think "value" and "balance" are somewhat similar. I think there is quite a few people who would be open to getting a 1BR, paying a slight premium, and opening up extra availability in the Studio or 2BR by booking at 1BR.

As it stands the 1BR is the last to book out of the Studio + 1BR combo. You might never balance this but seems like moving points from Studio to 1BR is backwards.

I agree with this. And I am definitely one of those people. I'd book 1BRs over Studios all the time if the 1BR cost was only 150% more instead of 210% more. Even if it was 190% more, I'd more it more often than not (depending on the total point cost). It's the more than double that is my gripe, because then I actually look at booking TWO studios rather than 1BR, since two studios are cheaper (and then I can sleep 8-10 if I wanted, rather than 4-5). You'd think to help with Studio demand that they'd want the math to work out for getting those of us who would book 1 BRs to book 1 BRs.

And while I see the need for balancing demand and availability, one of the reasons I bought fixed weeks at CCV as I saw the point reallocations diminishing my points over time, didn't want to deal with the 11 month 8am frenzy, and wanted to guarantee I could always do a week during that time period (holidays). I get the need to do balance the point charts, but it does feel a little wrong to have gone from being able to stay for a week 50 weeks of the year on my BRV direct contract to only being able to stay a week 43 weeks of the year. I have plenty of points and hope to remain in a position where I can always have plenty of points, but I can understand the frustration of a lot of people who only have a limited number of points and see that the times of year they bought into DVC to be able to visit increasing in cost and thus reducing the length of their vacations.

 

[havoc315]

That actually should not be part of the consideration past what they decide on points for sale when the resort goes on sale. At this point the only determiner should be balancing demand and availability. What something is "worth" in DVC points is irrelevant beyond demand and availability.

Its relevant as to demand and availability. Why is demand so low for 1 BRs, with tons of availability while studios get snatched up? Because DVC members don’t find the1BR “worth” the points charged.

Let's do an oversimplified example -- We will imagine a DVC with just 10 units.
You have 10 studios, priced at 100 points for the week. You have 10 1 BRs, priced at 250 points per week.
DVC sells 3500x points to 20x people, with each buyer owning 175x points.
Now, the buyers unanimously agree that the 1 bedrooms are not "worth" using a year and half of points. So they all want studios... They can stay in studios for almost 2 weeks per year.
But there are 20 owners, who want studios for almost 2 weeks per year... and there are only 10 studios!
What will this lead to? Those 10 studios getting booked quickly at the 11 month mark, with the other 10 owners desperate for studios at the 7 month mark at other resorts. Meanwhile, you have lots of empty 1 bedrooms.

That really doesn't do anybody any good in the long run. And it's what we actually see in some cases. Probably most egregiously at CCV. So yes, the point-price of the units needs to reflect whether an owner finds it "worth" the price in order to balance the supply and availability.

 

[Sandisw]

Its relevant as to demand and availability. Why is demand so low for 1 BRs, with tons of availability while studios get snatched up? Because DVC members don’t find the1BR “worth” the points charged.

Let's do an oversimplified example -- We will imagine a DVC with just 10 units.
You have 10 studios, priced at 100 points for the week. You have 10 1 BRs, priced at 250 points per week.
DVC sells 3500x points to 20x people, with each buyer owning 175x points.
Now, the buyers unanimously agree that the 1 bedrooms are not "worth" using a year and half of points. So they all want studios... They can stay in studios for almost 2 weeks per year.
But there are 20 owners, who want studios for almost 2 weeks per year... and there are only 10 studios!
What will this lead to? Those 10 studios getting booked quickly at the 11 month mark, with the other 10 owners desperate for studios at the 7 month mark at other resorts. Meanwhile, you have lots of empty 1 bedrooms.

That really doesn't do anybody any good in the long run. And it's what we actually see in some cases. Probably most egregiously at CCV. So yes, the point-price of the units needs to reflect whether an owner finds it "worth" the price in order to balance the supply and availability.

While I agree the structure of studio to 1 bedroom makes those less desirable, I think the point is that DVC resorts were built with that structure...other than Poly...so, at this point, 1 bedrooms will continue to be much higher points than those that want studios will spend,

What happens is that those un booked 1 bedrooms go to Disney for breakage so in one sense, we get some benefit from that.

Now, what they could do is build another DVC that has many more studios than 1 bedrooms and then make the charts reflect that.

But, right now, SSR, OKW, and AKV are large enough that studios are possible to get for quite a long time into the home resort window,

If I was depending on studios, those are great options for ownership. Those that want near park resorts are going to fight with other home resort owners since not much can be done.

It would be interesting to see at what point, those that said they’d move to a 1 bedroom if points were less and studios were raised, what that rise would have to be.

One huge complaints about RIV has been the high cost of a studio in comparison to all the other resorts so I’m just not sure how well the increase at other places would go over if it was more than 1 or 2 points. I am not sure if a change in 1 bedrooms by a few points a night would be enough to move the needle in terms of balancing demand between the two.

Only way to make the demand more even I think it to either change the entire purpose of a living room or you can increase occupancy or make the cost pretty much the same,

Someone who bought for studio use may not even have the points to jump to a 1 bedroom, even if it was only half the difference.

I personally believe today’s DVC buyer buys for mostly studios where years ago, they did not.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Its relevant as to demand and availability. Why is demand so low for 1 BRs, with tons of availability while studios get snatched up? Because DVC members don’t find the1BR “worth” the points charged.

I think there's some confusion over my statement that the point adjustments only are to be done based upon demand. Demand does show what people feel the value is in comparison to other villas at the same resort. Is having a kitchen worth double a studio or not? That decision is made by each individual owner and the final decision shows up in demand and availability. And yes those discussions are interest and I'm certainly not saying to stop - I've never said that to anyone. Demand is observable and trackable and that is what dictates what direction point adjustments should go once a resort is in sales and being booked. It should not matter if Joe, Sue and DVC all think that having double the space and a stove in a 1BR means it should require double the points if 99% of the recent of the owners disagree and it leaves 1BR's unreserved while studios have all been reserved for months.

Now if it's not possible to allocate between unit sizes (which I believe is true for most resorts) then we're stuck with what DVC decided originally and the best they can do is to even out 1BR demand across the seasons but they cannot even it out with studios and 2BR's which each have their own demand. However if the reallocations can flow across villa types then 1BR's should be lowered. Or at least I've never seen a single post here asking why 1BR's are all booked up and studios remain open for weeks or months afterwards even though DVC appears to see it that way.

 

[Sandisw]

I think there's some confusion over my statement that the point adjustments only are to be done based upon demand. Demand does show what people feel the value is in comparison to other villas at the same resort. Is having a kitchen worth double a studio or not? That decision is made by each individual owner and the final decision shows up in demand and availability. And yes those discussions are interest and I'm certainly not saying to stop - I've never said that to anyone. Demand is observable and trackable and that is what dictates what direction point adjustments should go once a resort is in sales and being booked. It should not matter if Joe, Sue and DVC all think that having double the space and a stove in a 1BR means it should require double the points if 99% of the recent of the owners disagree and it leaves 1BR's unreserved while studios have all been reserved for months.

Now if it's not possible to allocate between unit sizes (which I believe is true for most resorts) then we're stuck with what DVC decided originally and the best they can do is to even out 1BR demand across the seasons but they cannot even it out with studios and 2BR's which each have their own demand. However if the reallocations can flow across villa types then 1BR's should be lowered. Or at least I've never seen a single post here asking why 1BR's are all booked up and studios remain open for weeks or months afterwards even though DVC appears to see it that way.

Do you think that if Disney decided to severely reduce the lock off premium they could achieve somewhat of a change?

Then it makes me wonder whether the lock off premium that was built in from the start helps with running a points based system that is first come first service since number of points sold are based on 2 bedroom costs from initial base year calculation.

That premium helps to eat up points to a degree.

 

[havoc315]

I think there's some confusion over my statement that the point adjustments only are to be done based upon demand. Demand does show what people feel the value is in comparison to other villas at the same resort. Is having a kitchen worth double a studio or not? That decision is made by each individual owner and the final decision shows up in demand and availability. And yes those discussions are interest and I'm certainly not saying to stop - I've never said that to anyone. Demand is observable and trackable and that is what dictates what direction point adjustments should go once a resort is in sales and being booked. It should not matter if Joe, Sue and DVC all think that having double the space and a stove in a 1BR means it should require double the points if 99% of the recent of the owners disagree and it leaves 1BR's unreserved while studios have all been reserved for months.

Now if it's not possible to allocate between unit sizes (which I believe is true for most resorts) then we're stuck with what DVC decided originally and the best they can do is to even out 1BR demand across the seasons but they cannot even it out with studios and 2BR's which each have their own demand. However if the reallocations can flow across villa types then 1BR's should be lowered. Or at least I've never seen a single post here asking why 1BR's are all booked up and studios remain open for weeks or months afterwards even though DVC appears to see it that way.

Yes, agree. A single person's subjective valuation is irrelevant. But when it affects demand and availability, then it impacts all DVC owners.
I'll note -- I think part of the demand issue is that in many cases, 1 bedrooms have become MORE than double the points of a studio. That is a real head scratcher.

It's also reflected in the "lock off" premium.

I'll use Riviera summer as the illustration:
1 standard studio: 130 for the week
2 standard studios: 260
2 bedroom lockoff (1br + studio): 375 points

.. So far, everything is logical. And logically, if 1BR + 1 studio is 375, and if a studio is 130... then a 1 BR should be 245. And that would probably be a good reflection of value in the eyes of the DVC consensus (and therefore even out demand).
But instead.. 1 BR is 283.
Basically, 2 studios + another 23 points, for a 1 bedroom. 43 points more than booking studio+1br combined.

I almost feel like we should start an informal exchange here on the forum: "1 BR, seeking studio booker, to combine for lockoff and save points."
2 total strangers can book together, close the privacy door, and save 43 points to be split between them. (get that studio for 110 instead of 130, and get that 1 br for 260 instead of 283!)

And this all hurts Disney and DVC owners, every time someone books a studio, ripping apart a lockoff.. and you get no takers for the 1BR.

My only thought as to the possible rationale, maybe Disney wants to encourage people to upsize to full 2 bedrooms.

 

[havoc315]

While I agree the structure of studio to 1 bedroom makes those less desirable, I think the point is that DVC resorts were built with that structure...other than Poly...so, at this point, 1 bedrooms will continue to be much higher points than those that want studios will spend,

What happens is that those un booked 1 bedrooms go to Disney for breakage so in one sense, we get some benefit from that.

Now, what they could do is build another DVC that has many more studios than 1 bedrooms and then make the charts reflect that.

1. It's not just a matter of "that's how they were built." As an analysis was shown on this board at Riviera -- their 1 BRs went up by about 2% for 2021 and studios came down by over 1%. Widening the gap by yet another 3% is actually making the issue even worse. 3% is not nothing (lots of people gripe about annual 3% increases in dues). 3% in the other direction might actually be enough to start addressing the issue.

2. As you have pointed out, early days of DVC had bigger minimum purchases. So they have already changed one important aspect of how the system was designed. (though we may be slowly getting back to minimum purchases at those levels. And maybe this is part of the reason they have been increasing the minimum.)

3. As you correctly state, maybe they could fix things in a new DVC. But Riviera is nearly brand new, and they seem to only have made it even worse there.

It's also not solely a 1-bedroom conundrum. At CCV, the cabins exacerbate the issue, destroying studio availability. When you have to walk 11-month reservations for studios during offpeak times, something really isn't working.

 

[Leight19]

Do you think that if Disney decided to severely reduce the lock off premium they could achieve somewhat of a change?

Then it makes me wonder whether the lock off premium that was built in from the start helps with running a points based system that is first come first service since number of points sold are based on 2 bedroom costs from initial base year calculation.

That premium helps to eat up points to a degree.

I actually begin to think the lock off premium is main contributor to this issue. Someone did great analysis of all room types across resorts and I was surprised how few of resorts had stand alone 1BR instead of 2 BR lock off. If resort has studios and 2 BR lock off, it limits what you charge for studios and 2BR but 1BR is essentially free to inflate with lock off premium. I wonder if issue really comes down to the lock off premium is higher then market bares, especially when system forces full portion to be eaten by 1BR since independent studio points are part of math for total resort.

This makes me think an appropriate solution (which I would hate) would be to split premium between both rooms in 2BR lock off and split studio from lock off as different bookable category with higher price then normal studio (again I would hate this but fixes the demand issue in a way).

Edit: another solution would be to reduce the premium outright but I doubt that happens. Not sure what metric defines that premium as “in best interest of membership” but it gives more “free”points for cash rentals that go into someone’s pockets.

 

[havoc315]

Do you think that if Disney decided to severely reduce the lock off premium they could achieve somewhat of a change?

Then it makes me wonder whether the lock off premium that was built in from the start helps with running a points based system that is first come first service since number of points sold are based on 2 bedroom costs from initial base year calculation.

That premium helps to eat up points to a degree.

Certainly, if 1BR+1studio actually was closer in cost to a lockoff, that would likely help.

But I wonder... since the points are built around the lockoffs, it's a way of making sure there is availability year round.
In other words, by making some people "overpay" when they break up a lockoff and book the 1BR, it takes away more of their points for the year.
Or another way to look at it, there is a penalty for breaking up a lockoff, but the cost of the penalty is being imposed entirely on the 1BR booker, not on the studio booker.

 

[Leight19]

Certainly, if 1BR+1studio actually was closer in cost to a lockoff, that would likely help.

But I wonder... since the points are built around the lockoffs, it's a way of making sure there is availability year round.
In other words, by making some people "overpay" when they break up a lockoff and book the 1BR, it takes away more of their points for the year.
Or another way to look at it, there is a penalty for breaking up a lockoff, but the cost of the penalty is being imposed entirely on the 1BR booker, not on the studio booker.

I don’t like the lock off premium and feel like it creates incentives that conflict with best interest of members but I guess it will be useful in upcoming years to whittle away the point surplus from covid/2020.

 

[CastAStone]

I don’t like the lock off premium and feel like it creates incentives that conflict with best interest of members but I guess it will be useful in upcoming years to whittle away the point surplus from covid/2020.

It could be. Or Disney could continue to resell the lock off premium points as cash rooms, doing nothing to ameliorate the problem.

 

[zavandor]

It could be. Or Disney could continue to resell the lock off premium points as cash rooms, doing nothing to ameliorate the problem.

Good point.
The reality is DVC never clarified how it is possible that resorts like VGC, VGF or BCV, who are exrtremely difficoult to book even at 7 months, could still hit the breakage limit every year, which means a lot of rooms go unrented at 2 months and are then sold for cash.
Someone has speculated that they can anticipate breakage based on historical patterns and rent the rooms that should be available at 2 months even before, to maximize revenue. If this is true, then they should suspend such practice at least in the couple of years after the Covid closures, since with the excess points historical patterns cannot be trusted at all.
But it's all a black box, I'm not sure we, as owners, are entitled to get an explanation about this.

 

[zavandor]

1. It's not just a matter of "that's how they were built." As an analysis was shown on this board at Riviera -- their 1 BRs went up by about 2% for 2021 and studios came down by over 1%. Widening the gap by yet another 3% is actually making the issue even worse. 3% is not nothing (lots of people gripe about annual 3% increases in dues). 3% in the other direction might actually be enough to start addressing the issue.

I would not overstate the effects of this reallocation. At RIV, a studio standard is 114 points (1.64%) cheaper over the whole year, an average of 0.3 points per day. A 1BR standard is 107 (0.72%) more expensive, again 0,3 points per day. This is not really a reallocation, more probably it's a rounding error, allowed within the constraint of a season reallocation which should be allowed a little bit of wiggle room.
I would not read in this any rebalancing between room categories. And it's not like the original 2020 point charts which had both studios and 1BR 10-15% more expensive or Poly studios reallocated against the bungalows.

 

[Sandisw]

Good point.
The reality is DVC never clarified how it is possible that resorts like VGC, VGF or BCV, who are exrtremely difficoult to book even at 7 months, could still hit the breakage limit every year, which means a lot of rooms go unrented at 2 months and are then sold for cash.
Someone has speculated that they can anticipate breakage based on historical patterns and rent the rooms that should be available at 2 months even before, to maximize revenue. If this is true, then they should suspend such practice at least in the couple of years after the Covid closures, since with the excess points historical patterns cannot be trusted at all.
But it's all a black box, I'm not sure we, as owners, are entitled to get an explanation about this.

The POS clearly allows for the anticipation of open inventory so it’s definitely allowed under the terms of the contract.

I have also read, that DVCM, may spread breakage income to all resorts and that is how they all meet the maximum.

As owners, we don’t have the ability to change the practice

 

[zavandor]

I have also read, that DVCM, may spread breakage income to all resorts and that is how they all meet the maximum.

Really, where is it? I've never found it. this is actually how I thought it would work. Points flow from resorts like OKW or SSR into the most popular resorts, rooms go unrented at SSR and the breakage split among all resorts. It makes sense and makes lemonade out of lemons: the most popular resorts get a MF reduction thanks to rooms rented at the least popular ones.

 

[New Mouse]

Good point.
The reality is DVC never clarified how it is possible that resorts like VGC, VGF or BCV, who are exrtremely difficoult to book even at 7 months, could still hit the breakage limit every year, which means a lot of rooms go unrented at 2 months and are then sold for cash.
Someone has speculated that they can anticipate breakage based on historical patterns and rent the rooms that should be available at 2 months even before, to maximize revenue. If this is true, then they should suspend such practice at least in the couple of years after the Covid closures, since with the excess points historical patterns cannot be trusted at all.
But it's all a black box, I'm not sure we, as owners, are entitled to get an explanation about this.

Well its not like DVC has been transparent or even legal with all things in their recent history.