Points for Disney Collection 2002

[vernon]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the rises may not be as bad as first reported ( or hopefully not at all). Are you prepared to accept that an annual inflation in the cost is a very dangerous concept to agree to , however tacitly we do so? Now it seems EVENTUALLY I have managed to explain myself sufficiently. Did putting it into OKW room nights help?

We CAN only make assuptions on what we're told. I'd like people to be aware of what it means if our worst fears are confirmed. If not I'm a happy bunny and I'll go back to sleep. But IMHO by ignoring,sitting back and waiting for nailed on confirmation we miss the opportunity to raise public awareness. I just hope Disney takes the opportunity to make SOME statement about it's intentions and reasons for any dramatic changes it makes.

 

[SwampFox]

Vernon, I'm perfectly capable of using a spreadsheet. Thanks for asking!

even those that don't mind the increase accept it is in the region of 37 % which as someone mentioned that is the first move in 4 years I've gone with 8% per year.

However, you are projecting the reported increase for a full year for reservations- when in fact the only increase I've seen reported was for the month of January. Vernon, can YOU use a calculator? By my calculations the 31 days in January comprise less than 8.5% of the year. Therefore, my spreadsheet suggests that it is inappropriate to apply the reported 37% increase for January to the entire year and thus derive an 8% ANNUAL increase for the last 9 years. Maybe we should look at the increase (or decrease) for the ENTIRE year before we make any sweeping statements. I suspect it will be far less than your spreadsheet suggests. Are you suggesting that no change is ever appropriate??

I will, however, keep an eye out for your "BLOODY GREAT BIG ROCK". My head has never been in the sand.

 

[vernon]

I'm "suggesting " to accept an annual increase is inappropriate.

As you can use a spread sheet. At what level of annual inflation would you consider inappropriate?

 

[SwampFox]

I would certainly find that a true 8% annual increase in DC rates would be troubling and will heartity applaud your efforts if that is the case.

I can still find that we have had no increase for a number of years now and IF there is an increase for next year, it is due to unusual economic conditions and NOT due to some malevolent plan by DVC. To apply a fragment of information as a basis to condemn any program is not a sound method, IMO.

As for accepting an annual increase, there may be some cultural differences which I don't understand at all. I am quite used to annual increases in most all aspects of the economy where I live. Perhaps the economy is much different where you live. We have enjoyed very low inflation here recently, but it has been much higher in my recollection.

There are few economic aspects around here which don't continually increase. DVC has increased most aspects of my annual fees since I joined. Even though I've enjoyed the slight decreases recently, I come to accept those with the expectation that dues may also be higher next year. As long as any increase in my dues is below 15%, I'll accept it- as I've already agreed to that condition contractually. Those who have joined recently may have never experienced an increase in their annual fee, but it does happen and I accept it.

 

[PamOKW]

I agree that the sky is not falling yet and may not be once we see the point chart. However, people have every right to be concerned and question "why" whenever there is a change to the system. The home resort privilege can be reduced to as little as one month and the banking and borrowing suspended or discontinued at any time. This is all clearly explained in our documents. If the day comes that either of these are instituted I would not berate those who want an explanation by saying it was clearly explained in the documents. That's all that I think Vernon is asking for in this case as well. Why were changes made?

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

I doubledisney agree with you!! Thank you for taking the time to do the math on the "feared" DC point increases. I certainly hope that the DC points ups and downs mostly cancel each other out. I guess we will all have our calculators out later this week if the DC point charts get posted.

I feel that any large change in the program from what's described in the members guide book does warrant a critical examination, and possibly, yes, some criticism. I expect to use my points at DVC resorts only, but I also realize that there may be times when I might want (or need) some other options, like the DC. It is in all of our interests to have a program that contains a wide variety of choices, is the most flexible and affordable as possible. That way, the program will fulfill the Disney dreams of all DVCers. I may never pay for valet parking, but if it was a perk for DVCers that has been curtailed; it weakens the program overall IMHO.

I am perplexed by some of the negative reactions to the "negativeness" on the boards. Since the program was/is sold as being very flexible, many people purchased, each for their own reason (and yes, I already know that I purchased a real estate interest in my home resort).

I like to read the opinions of all. I believe that Disney can do wrong. I don't think they are going to always put DVC member interests above their corporate interests.

Maybe my tote bag didn't contain that special "proDisney" aroma therapy packet.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

I tripleDisney agree with you!!!

 

[vernon]

I'm glad I'm not the only person to find it troubling IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE THE CASE. That's all I was EVER trying to say, Sorry it took me so long to get my ideas over. I'm glad we got there in the end.

I have no problem with increases in dues in line with inflation ( or even slightly over) , this is to be expected as the things that dues pay for, by definition, will rise in cost. That to be is obvious.
BUT DVC is a "pre paid holiday" /" hedge against future costs" that was the reason ( I believe) most people buy into the scheme. The whole idea of paying up front for ( in my case) 50 years of vacations was to take inflation out of the picture. In DVC rooms ( at least) you are guaranteed against inflation, so why should the concept of "inflation proof tools" be so alien to many people? That's what DVC is !

On other WDW hotels rising compared to DVC ones we'll have to agree to disagree. I see no reason to accept DVC rooms should lose value compared to other WDW hotels. UNLESS there is a serious fall in DVC standards. The parity should remain. If the GF goes up by 10% then ( roughly) what DVC can charge for cash bookings should rise by a similar amount. There is no reason that it should cost the equivelant of 5 nights DVC accommodation to book a moderate let alone the more ridiculous levels that would arise in the unlikely event of that level of increase continuing on an on going basis.

Johnie I LOVE that second to last smilie

Time for bed for me. See ya soon

 

[Dean]

I wonder what this thread would have looked like back in 95 or 96 when DVC adjusted the points for certain seasons. I can hear the cries now. I knew it COULD happen but my guide promised it wouldn't. They've never changed them before. I only bought enough points to stay in X size for Y nights for Z time of year. I can hear the threats of I'm going to sue, sell, gripe, write, call or what ever other type of protest one can think of.

If I've given the impression that I don't care if they adjust the convenience options, I've given the correct philisophical impression. What I do care about is that if even one of my fellow DVC members was counting on using the program and are now "priced out" I am truly touched and sorry.

Overall DVC should increase in value about the same rate as the other WDW hotels. There may be other factors though like more of one type of resort, newer resorts, special amenities that will affect the equation, frankly either way. The system that controls this convenience option is part of the club function and is paid for by the members dues. That means we all pay for it even if we never use it and that's ok, whithin reason. The only difference in points between rooms (DVC or not) should be the difference in price that DVC rents out the unit given up (represented by points) vs what DVC pays for the destination resort which for DVC to DVC is zero. The reason the points need to be different for DC, CC, DCL is that DVC is discounting many of the rooms they rent out and may not even rent out all of them AND is paying a relatively high price for the DC rooms. Matt Gibbs told me that he could lower the margin considerably by banking mostly holidays with the points in questions but that wasn't how they wanted to function. On that I agreed with him.

Therefore any increase, or decrease for that matter, only has 2 factors that DVC must consider. The cost of the destination room and the average income from rental of the points so traded. The only way to vary the costs are to pay less for the DC room in comparison, rent out the rooms for higher costs and/or rent a higher portion of the traded points over time. I hope DVC is able to negotiate a better deal for 2003 and beyond than it sounds like they have for next January. As noted, we still haven't seen the overall points tables but it sounds like it is somewhat negative from what we've heard so far. I also bet we're all not as far off in our overal assessment of the situation as it sounds in this thread.

 

[SwampFox]

I don't think they are going to always put DVC member interests above their corporate interests.

Disney has a legal obligation to DVC members to honor the contracts we have with them. No more...no less.

Disney has a fiduciary obligation to it's stockholders (the owners of the company) to earn a reasonable rate of return.

The two concepts are both in force. There are times when we, as DVC members, seem to expect that both aspects are owed to us. That is not the case. But, as long as the DVC legal responsibility is met, we can choose to use the optional features or not. There is no responsibility for Disney to supply optional features which everyone will find suitable.

I may never pay for valet parking, but if it was a perk for DVCers that has been curtailed; it weakens the program overall IMHO.

Valet parking has never been a DVC perk. It was always free for everyone using it. It is still free for DVC Members at VWL and BWV. It's tough to lose a perk which never existed. The Valet change is another example of a user fee and will only affect those who choose to use the service.

 

[PamOKW]

Splitting hairs here maybe, but valet parking at BWV has been free to all WDW resort guests who show ID and was a charge (I think $6) to all other guests after 5:00 p.m. DVC continuing to keep the valet parking free for DVC members at DVC resorts was a good thing, showing goodwill but not required.

Dean -- your post makes perfect sense. If DVC had to deeply discount rooms this year (which it appears they did), but still had to pay close to rack rate to the other resorts, then a point increase makes sense. It's disappointing to think that the Walt Disney Company couldn't make accomodations within their own resorts to provide "discounts" to DVC member pricing but it sounds like that is probably the case. I just hope it is the economy that is devaluing DVC rentals rather than the practice of members undercutting Disney rates on the rooms. If it's the economy, eventually we should come back to parity in pricing for DVC versus other WDW resort rooms.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by SwampFox


Disney has a legal obligation to DVC members to honor the contracts we have with them. No more...no less.

Disney has a fiduciary obligation to it's stockholders (the owners of the company) to earn a reasonable rate of return.

The two concepts are both in force. There are times when we, as DVC members, seem to expect that both aspects are owed to us. That is not the case. But, as long as the DVC legal responsibility is met, we can choose to use the optional features or not. There is no responsibility for Disney to supply optional features which everyone will find suitable.

Agreed and the DVC board has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the DVC, not WDW. Do I think for a second they're going to sell WDW down the road for DVC, NO, but it must be heck balancing the issues sometimes. This is why I feel there should be regular members on the board, at least in an ex officio nature.

 

[LauraS]

Makes perfect sense to me Pam. Yes, DVC had to deeply discount rates at our home resorts and yet pay WDW rack rates for WDW resorts. That accounts for the rise in some categories of DC points by Disney. I still think that one of the main reasons that DVC had to deeply discount DVC room rates is due to the increase in rentals to the public by DVC members. I really think that DVC members who rent to strangers are hurting the rest of us. It's a tough one. I'd hate to advocate asking higher than 10 bucks a point because that brings people out of the woodwork looking to make a buck. But if Disney can't sell our DVC space because we are selling it much cheaper than they are, well, it surely seems that they have to make up for it somewhere. They're making up for it with an overall increase in the DC and DCL points. We are decreasing the value of our own personal interest in DVC. Now, for me it really isn't the end of the world. I really have no plans to use our points in the DC or the DCL. But it is clear that Disney is having more and more difficulty selling the DVC space that is exchanged out for CC, DC or DCL. Why? Because *we* are selling rooms at HH, VB, OKW and BWV much cheaper than they can sell it for!! Surely, it doesn't hurt the individual DVCer who is renting out that space. In fact, in many instances they could be making a profit. However, when one can rent a studio for 40% less than what Disney is asking, well why wouldn't they? I know that there is some risk involved, but in a lousey economy, well that's a risk that many would take. Those DVCers who feel the necessity to rent out their points, well, I hate to say it, but the price per point may need to go up.

Laura

 

[SwampFox]

and the DVC board has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the DVC, not WDW.

Exactly! The DVC Board has a responsibility to it's members NOT to lose money on a program for some to stay in non-DVC resorts. Changing the point costs to reflect that is the result.

I don't expect we'll be privy to hard data to demonstrate the figures and computations to defend any changes, but the current economic situation suggests to me that DVC has found it difficult to "pay" for the non-DVC rooms at some times of the year and some change was needed to uphold it's responsibility to members.

The fact that there has been little or no change for so long- until the current downturn, certainly seems a logical explanation for some change.

I don't disagree that it would be nice to have some member involvement with the DVC board. That provision is allowed, but may prove difficult to accomplish.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

I stand corrected on the specific details of my vallet parking example. I was using it to illustrate the point that when "perks" disappear, it lessens the overall value of the program, whether I utilize that perk or not.

I really really like perks! They make me feel appreciated and valued as a customer.

 

[vernon]

Dean I agree with you 100% on members being on the board in some way shape or form.

 

[PamOKW]

Exactly! The DVC Board has a responsibility to it's members NOT to lose money on a program for some to stay in non-DVC resorts. Changing the point costs to reflect that is the result.

I agree. And I also feel they have a responsibility to protect the membership at large from the negative effects of reducing the demand for DVC rooms by allowing a secondary, cut-rate public rental of units by members. I'm not sure if this is happening or not, but I would hope DVC monitors the situation and will find a way to curtail the practice if it negatively effects the ability to use the trade option of the program.

 

[CarolMN]

"Exactly! The DVC Board has a responsibility to it's members NOT to lose money on a program for some to stay in non-DVC resorts. Changing the point costs to reflect that is the result".


Now I'm confused. Who bears the risk of DVC rooms renting for less than rack rate? Is it Disney or the DVC members? Earlier in this thread I suggested that if there is a deficit from this program, that our dues would rise to cover it. Most others who have posted seem to believe that Disney takes the risk, and that our dues only cover the operating cost of the resort. Does anyone know for sure?

If DVC members' dues must cover the deficit, I am all for the point increase to minimize the chance of a significant dues increase. If Disney covers the deficit, I understand and also support the requisite increase. I do not expect a business to offer a product or service that loses money or fails to provide an equivalent benefit to the business.

As has been said here several times, I am reserving judgement on the purported magnitude of the change until the entire chart is posted.