Point Inflation and why it takes more points per stay at newer resorts

[lovin'fl]

While I personally hate that the newer resorts have higher nightly point requirements, I do think that it makes sense what Disney has done with the point charts. Looking at the weekly studio charts in order of increasing point requirements we basically go OKW, SSR, AKV, VWL, BWV, BCV, BLT, POLY and VGF. I'm pretty sure that is also the sequence at the hotels charge in as well. You basically can break the resorts down by (1) not being able to walk to a park, (2) next to EPCOT/DHS or boat ride to MK and then (3) being on the monorail. For the majority of people being on the monorail loop is the most desirable location, so BLT, POLY and VGF are going to have the highest point requirements.

A point is a point regardless of what resort it comes from, so it makes sense that it takes twice as many points to stay at VFG as it does to stay at OKW.

I agree!!!

 

[ParrotBill]

I bought at BWV and the difference in points cost per night compared to OKW was a big discussion point for us and others at that time. The original justification was that you get more for your points per night: More restaurants and services on site, and location close to two parks. I think that held up for a few years as they added WLV and BCV. Then I agree with the rest of this discussion - it became more of what the market would bear and not only did the cost to buy keep going up but at the same time the value of those points dropped for needing more points for an equivalent stay.

That said, I think overwater bungalows are something more special that other 2 bedroom villas and deserve a higher rate. A higher rate at GFV is unjustified. Same resort value as compared to BWV as far as I am concerned. You are paying for the "false upscaleness" of the Grand Floridian. I made that phrase up, can you tell?

 

[DougEMG]

A higher rate at GFV is unjustified. Same resort value as compared to BWV as far as I am concerned. You are paying for the "false upscaleness" of the Grand Floridian. I made that phrase up, can you tell?

I love the standard view point cost at BWV, but if I could get the VGF at a BWV point cost, even the BWV view point costs, I'd take the VGF every single time. The VGF room is much much nicer than the BWV room and I'd rather be next to MK than Epcot/DHS.

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

I think one way to understand this is to look through the eyes of a new owner at, say VGF. Like me, for example. I bought enough points that I can stay 10 days in a studio at the time of year we like, or we can stay 5 days in a 1BR. This is fine and we like VGF, so why would we ever want to stay anywhere else? And if all VGF owners feel this way, all rooms are booked in the 11 month window, and there is no availability to any other DVC owner, in spite of the fact that the ability to stay in ALL resorts is a big factor which is promoted in the sales process.

So what would entice me to ever stay anywhere else? Well, for one thing, what about those odd years when a 1BR is not enough and we would like to bring more guests. Then I can bunch three years worth of points to get enough for a larger unit OR I can look at the other resorts where my points go farther. Also, what if I want to stay 15 days one year? Again, I can look at the other resorts to make my points go farther.

But if the points are the same at, say, SSR and VGF, I'll just stay at VGF and be happy.

So the proper point differential would be the amount that would cause VGF to be fully booked, but for owners at other resorts to be able to stay there, too, when they wanted to.

 

[dismedvc]

But why do the points required to book a particular room size generally keep rising for each new resort built?
I'm not talking about a reallocation of an existing points chart for a resort to balance usage/demand, where the overall number of points at a resort remains the same. I'm talking about the newer resorts generally taking more points, so the total number of points at the newer resorts is generally greater than the older resorts (across an equivalent number of rooms).
As an example, let's assume I built 3 very tiny DVC resorts, each containing just 10 studios. The first resort had an average of 10 points per night - some nights more, other nights less, for a total of 36,500 points. The second resort had an average of 15 points a night, for a total of 54,750 points. The third resort had an average of 20 points per night, for a total of 73,000 points. That is what I mean by point inflation.

Take a look at the charts in posts #2 (Studio), #3 (1-BR), #4 (2-BR) and #5 (3-BG GV) and then respond with your thoughts and comments.

Mike:
Expanding on posts #20 and #24: In your 3 very tiny resort example quoted above, lets assume that because of location the cost of the land was twice as expensive for your third resort, and because of the quality of the construction your third resort cost twice as much to build. You would therefore like to charge all owners twice as much to stay at your third resort compared to your first resort based on the cost to build the third resort. in order for you to cover your costs, you would want to generate twice the initial sales revenue from your third resort compared to your first resort. You could generate that double revenue by either charging twice as much per point for your third resort, and keeping the number of points per night the same, or charging the same price per point for your third resort and doubling the number of points required per night. Either choice would generate the same revenue for you, but which choice would make your third resort more attractive to new buyers?

Assuming maintenance fees were adjusted to remain the same in total, new buyers of your third resort would be indifferent to which choice you made if they always stayed at your third resort. However, those new buyers of your third resort would prefer the same price per point with double the points required if they wanted to occasionally stay at your first resort, since under that pricing they could stay at that first resort for half the points as your third resort, which seems fair since it should cost half as much to stay at the first resort based on the cost of the land, and quality of construction. (I think that was the point being made in post #24 by miTnosnhoJ)

On the other hand, existing owners of your first resort, would prefer that your third resort sold for double the cost per point with the same number of points required per night. Those owners of your first resort could then stay at your third resort for the same cost as it cost them to stay at the first resort. That would not seem fair, since it should cost twice as much to stay at your third resort based on the cost of the land and the quality of construction. The way to make the owners of your first resort effectively pay twice as much to stay in your third resort would be to charge them double the points. (I think that was the point being made in post#20 by DougEMG)

My Conclusion: It makes it more attractive, and in my opinion fairer, to the new buyers of your third resort for you to charge the same price per point, but require twice as many points per night for your third resort compared to your first resort. That pricing also avoids giving what I would consider an undeserved bonus to the buyers of you first resort.

Obviously we could debate the cost of the land and the quality of construction as it relates to BLT, and the fact that the price per point and the number of points required per night both increased at BLT, but I would be interested in your thoughts on my above analysis. If we are in agreement maybe you and I could look into building some of those tiny resorts.

 

[gdrj]

Point Chart Inflation: Why more points per stay at newer resorts
.

Location, Location, Location.

 

[southerngirl528]

I agree with DougEMG's assessments, plus would add the supply/demand factor. Other than the fact that OKW and SSR are not next to a theme park, they are also the largest resorts with the most "keys".

 

[bobbiwoz]

It is the Poly points that have me totally confused. I do not understand why they built only studios and 2 bdrms, and why they made it so not many can afford the 2 bdrms even with banking and borrowing. It is almost as if they don't want people to stay long.

On the Member Cruise, they basically pitched staying at the bungalows either before or after staying someplace else. They definitely were "selling" one, two or three nights at most in a Poly bungalow.

I honestly totally prefer the Poly studios to just about any other studio on property. I used to be all about standard view at BWV, never really could see paying for pool or Boardwalk view. But the Poly lake view with the size and feel of the Poly studio, well we both are sold. I now have to try the VGF lake view studios, I've only booked standard, and now I think we may have been missing something. I love the ambiance (especially live music) of the Grand Floridian, especially in the Christmas holiday season.

 

[Tunseeker1]

For me its not about the motivation of disney its about member motivation driving points up.

When I go to stay at a hotel, go on a cruise, or any type of resort I have to make choices based on price.
The better vacation I want to take the more it will cost me.

If I go to an older resort/cruise ship the pool might not be as good as a newer design.
If i don't care about the new design pool then I can save some money.

If I want to go to kings island or cedar point, I can stay close or farther away for less money. I want a 10 min drive while a coworker was 45 miles away to save $40 a night on a $120vs $80 room.

Now to Disney. I own at a few different resorts including PVB. When I was adding on I could have picked any resort. I picked poly because of the split bathroom and beach.

If I want to go to saratoga I could, but I can't actually think of a reason to stay at saratoga. The point totals are a bit too high for me anymore.
I am taking friends for two nights in october (13-15) and for a studio the points were:
Animal Kingdom
Value 18
Standard 24
Savannah 32
Bay Lake Tower
Standard 30
Lake 36
Old Key West 20
Polynesian
Standard 36
Lake 42
Saratoga Springs 28

There are some missing because I couldn't book those. I had OKW at first but had to change rooms. The choice for Saratoga vs animal kingdom for friends with little kids is a no-brainer. The only real question was standard,value or Savannah. (Savannah was the choice)