Poly Bungalows are getting reserved - just one snapshot, but

[DVC92]

I see the problem with the bungalows and cabins at WL as not one for Disney but for members. Most members who are buying at Poly and WL aren't looking for these units and don't have enough points for them. These units allow Disney to sell an incredible numbers of points, which when they are sold out will cause a booking problem for members at these resorts since there won't be enough studio, 1 and 2 bedroom units. Disney is laughing all way to the bank.

 

[tjkraz]

So. There will be more studio owners than studios. As owners book at 11 months and some trade out, those trade outs are going to tend to what's avail at say 8-9 months. And more often that's going to be bungalows.

I see the problem with the bungalows and cabins at WL as not one for Disney but for members. Most members who are buying at Poly and WL aren't looking for these units and don't have enough points for them. These units allow Disney to sell an incredible numbers of points, which when they are sold out will cause a booking problem for members at these resorts since there won't be enough studio, 1 and 2 bedroom units. Disney is laughing all way to the bank.

In a vacuum that would be true. If the Poly was the only DVC resort and more than 75% of owners planned to stay in Studios, yes it would be a problem.

But there isn't one DVC resort--there are FOURTEEN. These inequalities between accommodation type and numbers of guests wishing to book already exist throughout the program. We could spend all day talking about things like AKV club rooms, BLT Standard, BWV BoardWalk view and other categories where demand far exceeds supply. And we could talk about other resorts/categories where organic demand is far lower than the supply of rooms.

In short:
- Not all Poly owners are booking their home resort
- Owners at the 13 other DVC properties will also book the Bungalows
- The bungalows weren't deliberately priced high as part of some grand scheme to have them drop to CRO at 60 days. There isn't demand for a $2500 villa on less than 2 months notice.

 

[ziravan]

Granted, it's anecdotal, but I had to cancel my cruise because of Harvey and I'm making last minute Labor Day weekend plans at WDW to accommodate flight changes to still do the WDW part of our trip.

The day before a Labor Day 9/2-9/4 stay:

 

[ziravan]

 

[ziravan]

For the record, this offer was with me signed in for potential DVC discounts.

Also. At this time, Friday 9/1 at 9:30 am Central, this is the ONLY CRO room being offered for Labor Day weekend for these 2 days on property. Disney has exactly 1 Labor Day weekend CRO room avail right now.

I've been watching and other rooms pop up and disappear from time to time.

(I already managed to book something; I'm just still looking for an upgrade over my CBR pirate room far enough away from the main building it might as well be in Neverland. I JUST missed a Beach Club studio on Travelocity on Wed. Saw it, clicked it: someone beat me to it.)

 

[tjkraz]

Also. At this time, Friday 9/1 at 9:30 am Central, this is the ONLY CRO room being offered for Labor Day weekend for these 2 days on property. Disney has exactly 1 Labor Day weekend CRO room avail right now.

So their dastardly plan of using high bungalow point costs to drive them to CRO isn't working after all.

 

[ziravan]

So their dastardly plan of using high bungalow point costs to drive them to CRO isn't working after all.

I know this is sarcasm but....

The plan is to have it avail, which it is. You can't sell what you don't have in inventory. And. Disney has a Bungalow in inventory. (And with the Bungalow the only item in inventory, it'll almost certainly move.)

If it doesn't sell, no loss. The points behind it sold and the MFs will be collected.

If it does sell, free money.

Either way is a win for Disney, and THAT is the plan, and it seems to be working perfectly.

 

[ziravan]

So their dastardly plan of using high bungalow point costs to drive them to CRO isn't working after all.

As you've suggested, because Poly is only studios, more people might trade out and that will probably affect total availability of both bungalows and studios.

But we're talking about how this was gamed out by Disney.

When this was first planned, it was commonly understood that Poly would have a tower and all room types. Those plans got changed.

But the Bungalows still got built.

My guess is that CRO will end up with at least one and probably more Bungalows in inventory for most nights except for a handful we could probably name, first 2 weeks of Dec, etc.

Whether as breakage or trade outs, CRO will get a fair share of Bungalows to sell. That has to make Disney happy.

And if Disney is happy, why should they reallocate? That's my point.

For the record, acting in the member's best interest is so nebulous as to not be a factor here. Any reallocation that reduces Bungalow points and increases studio nights could be said to negatively impact 87.5% of Poly owners with enough points only for studios. If the current point structure is a win for Disney, it's easy enough to make the argument that changing it WOULDN'T be in member's best interest.

 

[tjkraz]

I know this is sarcasm but....

The plan is to have it avail, which it is. You can't sell what you don't have in inventory. And. Disney has a Bungalow in inventory. (And with the Bungalow the only item in inventory, it'll almost certainly move.)

If it doesn't sell, no loss. The points behind it sold and the MFs will be collected.

If it does sell, free money.

Either way is a win for Disney, and THAT is the plan, and it seems to be working perfectly.

Depends on how the room got into the system. If it was a room owned by Disney before the last of the Poly was declared, Disney pays the maintenance. If it was a room added via exchange programs, then leaving it empty does harm the exchange program. And even if it was a villa available for points that rolled-over at 60 days, Disney has to share revenue from the rental (breakage.)

Nevertheless, an empty room is an empty room. It's lost ancillary revenue for Disney and another DVC member unable to use their points for something more desirable.

I don't reject the idea that Disney CAN benefit from renting villas to cash guests. But I do reject the idea that the Bungalows were deliberately priced high to turn them into CRO profit centers.

 

[ziravan]

Depends on how the room got into the system. If it was a room owned by Disney before the last of the Poly was declared, Disney pays the maintenance. If it was a room added via exchange programs, then leaving it empty does harm the exchange program. And even if it was a villa available for points that rolled-over at 60 days, Disney has to share revenue from the rental (breakage.)

Nevertheless, an empty room is an empty room. It's lost ancillary revenue for Disney and another DVC member unable to use their points for something more desirable.

I don't reject the idea that Disney CAN benefit from renting villas to cash guests. But I do reject the idea that the Bungalows were deliberately priced high to turn them into CRO profit centers.

No. They're priced high to sell more points and MFs. DVC was very aggressive about that here.

What allows them to be so aggressive is the knowledge that if they're too aggressive, it can still be a win for them.

Those rooms ending up in CRO was almost surely not their prime consideration, but that possibility was surely factored into their planning.

Honestly, I don't even consider that to be nefarious, yet. If people decide to trade out or not utilize their points, then those are decisions that they paid MFs to make.

To me, this will only be a bad scenario if studio seekers are routinely blocked out at 11 months. Since I doubt there'll be very many times that happens, it's prob moot.

I don't think Disney is evil for devising a system that ends up profiting them. In fact, as a Poly studio owner, I'd prefer CRO end up with the Bungalows, leaving more studios avail for Poly owners with enough points for them.

 

[ziravan]

Bungalows for this weekend no longer in inventory.

Cha. Ching.

If Disney is smart, the Bungalows will never be empty.

The Bungalows also serve as a form of flagship for Disney. Even if they didn't sell, there's potentially immense value in strategically comping/upgrading them. And. Disney can easily afford to do that when someone else is paying the upkeep.

Win. Win. Win.

 

[bobbiwoz]

I hope a cabin is always available at 7 months. I think it's a nod to accommodate members who want to trade in, but do not own at CC. For me, it is a desirable accommodation to trade into. Bungalows, too!

 

[ziravan]

I hope a cabin is always available at 7 months. I think it's a nod to accommodate members who want to trade in, but do not own at CC. For me, it is a desirable accommodation to trade into. Bungalows, too!

Yes and this is where @tjkraz's observations make the most sense.

It's not 20 Bungalows across Poly ownership but 20 across DVC ownership.

And since most Poly owners only have enough points for studios, that's perfectly fine. I think it means that more Bungalows are going to trade out than studios as a percentage of points. And I think this will ultimately frustrate non-Poly owners who believed that 360 studios means that studios at 7 months will be routinely available.

I do think the bungalows will find a home on points most nights. My comments are mostly directed at a stray 1 or 2 rooms here and there.

If Disney is able to send 2 Bungalow rooms to CRO each night, it still meets what we've been discussing, and it would do so being 90% occupied on points.

I think DVC aggressively priced the Bungalows not for the purpose to sell them as CRO but because they knew they could if it came to that. All the angles benefit DVC - but that's what a well designed program should do.