Points at BWV vs WL vs OKW

[Clifford@BWV&VWL]

Hi, gawsh as Goofy would say, what an interesting thread. AFter reading through it I'm glad to see that a hot topic has been looked at in such a balanced way without going over the edge!!!

To add our two penneth (our views), our home is BWV which we purchased a couple of years ago. We chose this for the location and facilities, it gives us an excellent base for when we want to go into the theme park magic at Epcot or MGM and gives us all of the transportation options on our doorstep (granted you need to walk a little way to get to the monorail but after those large American breakfasts you need the exercise!).

We have just decided to add-on at VWL because we liked the idea of the 11 month window at a location which is still handy for WDW but gives us a retreat from all of the activity at BWV.

We also love VB and have stayed there but we felt we could handle the 7 month window at VB as we tend to stay out of the main seasons. We have never stayed at OKW but for all the reasons stated previously in this thread and elsewhere it sounds like a great place to be.

Let's face it, wherever you stay on Disney property you will have a magical time... guaranteed and that's why we joined DVC.

 

[Pete W.]

Of course everyone should do what's right for them, and if buying at VWL feels good then do it. But recognize that VWL owners may not be getting as much value for their money as BWV owners.

A one-night stay at the BWI during regular season is $309 for a standard-view room, and a one-night stay during regular season at the Wilderness Lodge is $219. Whether you agree or not, Disney is indicating that a stay at BWI is significantly more valuable than a comparable stay at WL.

Interestingly, this disparity all but disappears when comparing BWV to VWL. A standard-view studio during regular season at BWV costs $309 per night (the same as BWI!) and a standard-view studio during regular season at VWL costs $294 per night. And, as others have indicated in this thread, it takes just as many DVC points to reserve a room at VWL as it does for a preferred-view room at BWV.

I argue that BWI guests IN GENERAL get more value (in terms of proximity to parks, dining, recreation and entertainment) from their rooms than WL guests, which is why BWI guests pay significantly more than WL guests for comparable accommodations.

By extension, I believe that BWV guests get more value from their rooms than VWL guests, yet VWL guests (whether paying cash or DVC points) are charged as much as BWV guests!

If you love VWL and are happy owning there, then more power to you, especially if you don't value the proximity to Epcot/MGM, shopping, dining and entertainment that BWV guests enjoy. But understand that guests IN GENERAL value the Wilderness Lodge location significantly less than the Boardwalk location, and as a result Disney charges significantly less for the WL vs BWI, yet you pay just as much for VWL as others pay for BWV.

This, IMO, means VWL owners are getting a significantly worse deal than BWV owners. It might be a deal that they are happy to make, but it's a worse deal nevertheless.

 

[Lisa F]

Originally posted by Pete W.

Interestingly, this disparity all but disappears when comparing BWV to VWL. A standard-view studio during regular season at BWV costs $309 per night (the same as BWI!) and a standard-view studio during regular season at VWL costs $294 per night. And, as others have indicated in this thread, it takes just as many DVC points to reserve a room at VWL as it does for a preferred-view room at BWV.

{snip}

If you love VWL and are happy owning there, then more power to you, especially if you don't value the proximity to Epcot/MGM, shopping, dining and entertainment that BWV guests enjoy. But understand that guests IN GENERAL value the Wilderness Lodge location significantly less than the Boardwalk location, and as a result Disney charges significantly less for the WL vs BWI, yet you pay just as much for VWL as others pay for BWV.

This, IMO, means VWL owners are getting a significantly worse deal than BWV owners. It might be a deal that they are happy to make, but it's a worse deal nevertheless.

Of course the disparity all but disappears when you compare DVC units. Did you honestly expect DVC to build new units and sell them for LESS than they sold them for at the BW (no matter where the units are built)? DVC's pricing structure is market driven. It's not based on what is "fair", it's based on what people are willing to pay. Right now DVC can't build resorts on WDW property fast enough.

Although I understand the argument about the relative value of staying at various resorts, that argument is basically a statistical oversimplification of the situation. People who wish to stay at the VWL have to pay the price that is driven by the market, which is STILL a good value in comparison to rack rates at the WL. Comparing relative value between the resorts is like comparing apples to oranges because, as I have said before, what is the "value" in staying at any resort if it's not where you want to be staying?

Just looking at the numbers I'd say the best value in DVC hands down is OKW. Members bought in at around $50 per point. It has the lowest point schedule and the highest square footage per room, so based on material facts alone you are getting more "room" for your dollar.

There are tons of people who would argue that location of the BWV makes it a better value than OKW. All that this goes to show is that depending on what your values are and what aspects of your vacation are important to you, different people will put different values on the relative amenities of the various resorts. Price is only one factor. Square footage is another. Location is another. Different people weigh these things differently.

People who purchase at VWL are not idiots because they value that particular location and that particular atmosphere more highly than square footage and being within walking distance to a major park. They don't need to "understand" that they are getting much less for their dollar than people at other resorts. I could get a $49 discounted rate at the All Star resorts easily but I have no desire to stay there so there is no value in that to me, regardless of what the "dollars to square footage" ratio says. What they do understand is that they are getting to stay at their favorite resort in fabulous villas for far less money than it would cost to stay in the lodge in similarly sized rooms.

Lisa

 

[Pete W.]

I hope that nothing I wrote in my post suggested that VWL owners are idiots. To the contrary, I fully respect the fact that some people prefer VWL to BWV, and for those people, buying a VWL contract is the right thing to do.

My only point is that some VWL owners get rankled when anyone suggests they are getting a "worse deal" than some other DVC members.

I bought in at BWV for $65/point in '98. I paid a heck of a lot more than OKW owners in '92 plus I received no park passes. I admit that OKW buyers in '92 got a better deal than me.

When I add-on via resale next year at $75/point (or whatever it will be by then!) I won't feel like an idiot for paying $10+ more per point than in '98. For me, it will be the right thing to do at the right time, even though my '98 purchase will be a better deal than my '02 purchase.

Obviously, none of us would have purchased DVC if we didn't think it was a good deal, but that doesn't mean that we can't accept the fact that some deals are better than others.

Enjoy your trips to VWL Lisa!

 

[Lisa F]

I also bought into BWV in 1998, took advantage of magical beginnings and it brought our price effectively down to $55/point.

I've occasionally thought about the fact that perhaps we COULD'VE bought into DVC much sooner and it would've been a better deal. But then I remember how much I love the BWV and how much I didn't really like OKW and I realize that no matter what the price was at OKW, I wouldn't have bought in there anyway. SO, when I think about the "deal" and the "value" I got at BWV, I don't compare it to how much OKW cost when it first opened, but rather how much BWV cost when IT first opened. In my mind, THAT is compare apples to apples and you just can't make an objective comparison otherwise.

Likewise, your resale example is also comparing apples to apples and yes, you got a better deal with your original BWV purchase than you will with an add on (and I acknowledge that our last BWV add on in which we only were able to sell back half our points for MB and which cost $67/point as a base was not as good a deal as our original purchase).

All I am saying is that the comparisons that are being made between resorts have some basis in fact and a liberal amount of "personal opinion" thrown in and are therefore a matter of making a comparison that cannot be fairly made. To say that VWL are getting a worse deal IMO isn't really fair... except to say that those who buy in after the price increase will be getting a worse deal than those who bought in before.

Lisa

 

[BillM]

Kudos to DanG on his post. He expressed his opinion perfectly. DVC buyers purchased at the five resorts for personal reasons. That's their business and their $$$.So be it. We don't need to be told that our decision was not well reasoned and that it wasn't a good value. LisaF says she "doesn't like OKW". I'm sure she has some personal reasons for that opinion. We have that same negative opinion of BWV. But we have personal reasons for that opinion. That doesn't make us unvalue consious. We couldn't care a twit whether we could walk to Epcot or MGM. And that's our personal opinion.