Points transfers and no renters calling MS

[MRWW]

Hello,

I am looking for some input.

My family and I have visited WDW several times over the years and in the past few years we have been strongly considering DVC. Last year we thought we should experience DVC before buying and rented a week at BCV. We had a great time and thought we would make our purchase in the fall of 2006.

Here we are in the middle of fall and I have been on the dis again (I haven’t been on much since last Feb.). I was surprised by a couple of changes since I last researched DVC. I want to make sure I understand the changes and also to get some feedback.

The first change I noticed was the “One time transfer of points”. I understand this was always the case, but it was a rule that was not enforced. Apparently, it was so relaxed that there were some folks taking advantage of it. From what I have read, the solution was to make a blanket change instead of fixing the problem. I am not currently a DVC member and am going by what I have read. Please correct me if I am wrong. If the problem is truly the inability to track points when transferred, I would think the talented people employed at DVC would have this fixed quickly.

The second change I noticed is that renters are not allowed to contact MS for anything about the reservation. I know there is a contingent against renting, but bear with me. If you find yourself in a position to rent, this adds a considerable amount of complexity to the renting process for the DVC owner. I am assuming this was part of the reason that this was done. I believe it may reduce the number of renters as well. Again, this is possibly another goal for this change.

I am assuming many of you are thinking by now that these changes are no big deal. My concern is the loss in flexibility. My way of thinking is that I always need contingency plans. Even though I may never need to rent, or transfer points more than once per year, I like to have them as an option.

When I first looked at DVC one of the things I liked was the incredible level of flexibility. I’m not saying that DVC doesn’t still have flexible attributes. I just think that this is a reduction in the flexibility. Perhaps this is all the further it will go and there are plans to open up points transfers again when they get this under control.

Hope this doesn’t touch off anyone, just trying to get some input (sorry for the long post!).

Humbly,

 

[JimMIA]

I think you've got a very clear understanding of the two changes, and a good grasp of the reasons for them.

I think there are probably a couple of additional reasons behind the "No renter calls to MS" change, however. MS is paid for entirely from our dues, and I've seen some posts by members who really didn't care either way about renting, but didn't like paying the overhead of those who rent. In addition, I suspect there were some issues with MS call volume and wait times for members which people thought were aggravated by the renter calls.

I personally don't think these changes reduce the flexibility of DVC. What they will do is increase the amount of legwork the owner has to do to rent their points, and remove an important "security blanket" from the people renting the points. (Of course, that was always a false sense of security, because an unscrupulous owner could always cancel a ressie right up to checkin.)

 

[RobDoc]

DVC has the right and ability to make changes in a number of ways without consulting the membership for permission. Originally (from 1991 until 2003) only one transfer per Use Year was allowed. From 2003 until this summer, DVC changed the policy and allowed multiple transfers per Use Year and as of August 1, 2006 has changed the policy back to it's original status. While the reasons for this change have been speculated here, no official statement was made by DVC regarding having anything to do with tracking transferred points (just as no reason was ever offered when the policy was changed in 2003).

MS (Member Services) is just that - the means of contact with DVC for it's members. While they did allow non-members to have access for some things in the past, it is now being limited as a member's only service. With over 100,000 members wanting to use that as a means to access DVC information, it may be wrong to assume the change was made soley to affect the ability to rent. No changes have ever been made to the language in the documents allowing DVC members to provide accommodations to others. Judging from the number of requests to rent and offerd to rent on our site, it would not appear to have had any negative affect on the number of both since August (the number of members wanting to rent to others and the number of requests for DVC reservations is at it's highest EVER at this time).

Certainly some could view these policies as a loss of flexibility, but the inability of non-members to directly contact DVC Member Services certainly does not limit any flexibility for members - only non-members. Those members wanting to rent have already found other means to satisfy the confidence of those wanting to rent from them. As for the limitation of one transfer - the policy worked without complaint for 12 years and it apparently working again now.

With each change made, members have found a way to use new programs and policies to their best advantage. I like to think of the DVC program as a work-in-progress, with changes constantly being made - usually to the ultimate benefit of the membership in general.

Enjoy!

 

[Deb & Bill]

It's how you look at DVC. It's meant to be a program of prepaid vacations at WDW. Even though they try to sell the fact that you can trade out to different timeshares. If you're not going to use your points, then maybe DVC isn't really for you (the generic "you" here). It really wasn't meant as a means to make cash to afford other vacations instead of using your points. And we all know that you have to plan ahead for DVC.

It's really a very flexible timeshare since it allows you to go different times of the year without having to purchase that time of year. It allows you to stay in different size lodging, ie a studio this time, GV next time. You can bank or borrow your points to get more in a certain year.

The one transfer in/out was always the rule. As well as no compensation for points that are transferred (they are not enforcing that one). Disney is notorious for not enforcing their rules. Maybe this is a new beginning to that. Especially when you have 100,000 members. And with this many members, non-members really shouldn't have the access to the service we pay for with our dues. The staff at MS isn't really unlimited.

If you choose to rent out your points, you're almost acting as a travel agent for the non-member. You're responsible for all the calls to Disney. Plus, as a member, you usually know the drill. Non-members don't know what to expect and may try to change things they have no control over. That may have been the reason for this change, too. A non-member actually changed a reservation that they had no control over. MS was never meant to be accessed by non-members. That's why they call it Member Services.

As far as the fix for the one time transfer, evidently DVC nor Disney pay that much or have that much staff who work on these types of things. They either have to contract for services or hire the staff to do it. I think their staff is pretty lean right now.

 

[MRWW]

It's how you look at DVC. It's meant to be a program of prepaid vacations at WDW. Even though they try to sell the fact that you can trade out to different timeshares. If you're not going to use your points, then maybe DVC isn't really for you (the generic "you" here). It really wasn't meant as a means to make cash to afford other vacations instead of using your points. And we all know that you have to plan ahead for DVC.

I was hoping this thread would not take this direction.

I am not looking to make money from a vacation plan (believe me, there are a lot better ways to invest your money if your looking to make more money). I don't plan to rent and for the most part I don't think I would plan to transfer points very often. I just noticed these changes in the past several months and this caused me to raise my eyebrows. Just wondering how DVC members felt about the change.

Thanks,

 

[Chuck S]

Just wondering how DVC members felt about the change.

In truth, I think it truly had an impact on a very small percentage of overall membership. And if, by preventing renters to call MS help us to lower costs...or makes it possibe to spread the staff out so some of them can cover Saturday afternoons...it is a very positive change.

 

[LisaS]

I am not looking to make money from a vacation plan (believe me, there are a lot better ways to invest your money if your looking to make more money). I don't plan to rent and for the most part I don't think I would plan to transfer points very often. I just noticed these changes in the past several months and this caused me to raise my eyebrows. Just wondering how DVC members felt about the change.

You may not get a lot of replies to your post because when this topic first came up back in August, there was a lengthy and very lively discussion at the time. I'm not sure very many have the energy to go another round on this topic!

I would post a link to the main discussion thread on this topic from back in August but the new search engine on these boards just doesn't work for me. If you have the patience to track it down, you will find a lot of opinions on the subject.

 

[LisaS]

I would post a link to the main discussion thread on this topic from back in August but the new search engine on these boards just doesn't work for me. If you have the patience to track it down, you will find a lot of opinions on the subject.

OK. I have to eat my words now because I actually managed to find the two threads I was thinking about when I posted above. So you might find these interesting:

This thread discusses MS no longer taking calls from non-members:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1177070

There is a thread discussing one transfer per Use Year, but I'm having a problem posting the link. Just edit the URL above and replace the number that appears after "t=" with this number, but with the spaces removed: 1 1 8 2 3 3 0

 

[Granny]

The second change I noticed is that renters are not allowed to contact MS for anything about the reservation. I know there is a contingent against renting, but bear with me. If you find yourself in a position to rent, this adds a considerable amount of complexity to the renting process for the DVC owner. I am assuming this was part of the reason that this was done. I believe it may reduce the number of renters as well. Again, this is possibly another goal for this change.

I am assuming many of you are thinking by now that these changes are no big deal. My concern is the loss in flexibility. My way of thinking is that I always need contingency plans. Even though I may never need to rent, or transfer points more than once per year, I like to have them as an option.

Mike....I think many, like myself, are not clear on how the changes add "complexity" to the renting process? Really, it hasn't changed the usual situation where a member makes a reservation for someone and charges them for it. And has been noted, even when you could contact MS it didn't really protect you from anything.

I also don't see what contingency planning has to do with these changes? Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding how this is affecting you?

 

[salmoneous]

These changes are things that got heavy discussion on the DIS, but I honestly don't think they will make a significant difference for the vast majority of people. Not allowing renters to call MS isn't going to change the rental market at all - it just means a slight amount of extra work for members renting points. And probably 99.9% of members will never do more than one transfer in a year anyway - and the 00.1% who do will find other ways to deal with any legitimate needs.

There are still many pros and cons of buying DVC. I honestly think these two changes are no big deal and shouldn't make a difference one way or the other.

 

[JimMIA]

There is one situation where the changes will have an adverse effect on some members, but as has been noted it's not really a change. It's really just a renewal of enforcement of a rule that has been there for quite some time -- the one transfer per use year rule.

The negative impact will be on members who want to do large family gatherings and would like to transfer a large number of points into their account for that purpose. They will not be able to do multiple small transfers; they'll have to do one big one. If they can't find someone with enough points to transfer, they'll have to go to Plan B.

I don't know how many members that affects, but I know if affects some.

 

[MRWW]

Mike....I think many, like myself, are not clear on how the changes add "complexity" to the renting process? Really, it hasn't changed the usual situation where a member makes a reservation for someone and charges them for it. And has been noted, even when you could contact MS it didn't really protect you from anything.

I also don't see what contingency planning has to do with these changes? Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding how this is affecting you?

Renting was the lesser of my concerns, but my understanding is that renters could take care of things like DME, changes in people in the room, etc. Now, this has to be done by the renter. As for renters not being able to contact MS, someone earlier noted that renting is up, so obviously that is not an issue. Also, I like the idea of reduced call volume.

The contingency plan part of this is that you never know what is going to happen in life. I think that points transfering and renting gives DVC owners additional options when life throws you a curve ball (sorry, I love baseball). Nothing more than that implied here.

Thanks for all the comments and the reference back to other threads. They are all appreciated.

Regards,

 

[Granny]

Renting was the lesser of my concerns, but my understanding is that renters could take care of things like DME, changes in people in the room, etc. Now, this has to be done by the renter. As for renters not being able to contact MS, someone earlier noted that renting is up, so obviously that is not an issue. Also, I like the idea of reduced call volume.

The contingency plan part of this is that you never know what is going to happen in life. I think that points transfering and renting gives DVC owners additional options when life throws you a curve ball (sorry, I love baseball). Nothing more than that implied here.

Mike...I wasn't trying to grill you...just wasn't clear on what you meant. I think the options for renting are still as valid as before the transfer rule enforcement. Just a little more work for the owner who is renting the points. I've rented my points a couple of times and had no issue with calling MS for DME, etc.

By the way, I like baseball too. Seems like my team is still playing games somewhere.

 

[The LaPrads]

There is one situation where the changes will have an adverse effect on some members, but as has been noted it's not really a change. It's really just a renewal of enforcement of a rule that has been there for quite some time -- the one transfer per use year rule.

The negative impact will be on members who want to do large family gatherings and would like to transfer a large number of points into their account for that purpose. They will not be able to do multiple small transfers; they'll have to do one big one. If they can't find someone with enough points to transfer, they'll have to go to Plan B.

I don't know how many members that affects, but I know if affects some.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone actually called MS and asked them to make an exception in the case of a large family gathering? I would be curious to hear what they said.

I have a feeling (with no basis in fact) that they would probably allow such a thing to take place. Although I could be completely wrong.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone actually called MS and asked them to make an exception in the case of a large family gathering? I would be curious to hear what they said.

I have a feeling (with no basis in fact) that they would probably allow such a thing to take place. Although I could be completely wrong.

I think it might be safe to say that you are completely wrong. It might take an approval from Jim Lewis to do what you ask. And I don't think he'd be approving many of those requests.

 

[The LaPrads]

I think it might be safe to say that you are completely wrong. It might take an approval from Jim Lewis to do what you ask. And I don't think he'd be approving many of those requests.

Wouldn't be the first time!!

I was just wondering if anyone asked. I was under the impression that they began enforcing this in order to cut down on the sale of DVC points as a business. I have read a lot of threads on here with people discussing it, but would be interested to hear the results of someone actually requesting such a thing.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I can't believe we are STILL discussing this topic....Old news.
This horse was declared dead months ago.

 

[The LaPrads]

I can't believe we are STILL discussing this topic....Old news.
This horse was declared dead months ago.

Sorry...
I'll shut up now

 

[JimMIA]

I can't believe we are STILL discussing this topic....Old news.
This horse was declared dead months ago.

OTOH...if we stop discussing anything but new news, we'll have to shut this puppy down!

BTW...how long is a Use Year?

 

[Granny]

Sorry...
I'll shut up now

Oh, don't mind Diane. She's just been dying to use that "dead horse" image for months now!