Poly1 v (?) Poly 2

[TraderStitch]

I'm not sure it would be that simple, but maybe it would be. DVC didn't just place restrictions on Riviera resale points, they placed restrictions on all resale points bought/sold after 2019. So far those restrictions really only apply to access to Riviera but in theory, those restrictions would apply to new resorts that come on line. So imagine the hue and cry of people who bought direct points versus resale to avoid those restrictions. It would be really messy.

At least that is my understanding of the restrictions, but I could be mistaken.

Agreed. Based on their previous wording, I'd assume the new Disneyland Tower and Poly Tower would fall into the same realm. 2019 could just be a line they drew in the sand to help boost direct sales since it is really their only option to battle resale.

 

[havoc315]

I very seriously doubt that the majority of the Poly buyers will be buying for the bungalows or be hesitant because they are not getting 11 month booking.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you underestimate how many people buy into Poly on the fantasy of staying at the bungalows some time. So many people buy on emotion, during their trip to WDW. Not sitting around crunching point charts.

 

[BamaGuy44]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you underestimate how many people buy into Poly on the fantasy of staying at the bungalows some time. So many people buy on emotion, during their trip to WDW. Not sitting around crunching point charts.

I think Disney definitely believes this, since they so often try to show bunglaow/GV type of rooms when hey give a demo. Makes perfect sense, just basic salesmanship to highlight the most impressive products

 

[BeachClub2014]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you underestimate how many people buy into Poly on the fantasy of staying at the bungalows some time. So many people buy on emotion, during their trip to WDW. Not sitting around crunching point charts.

I think Disney definitely believes this, since they so often try to show bunglaow/GV type of rooms when hey give a demo. Makes perfect sense, just basic salesmanship to highlight the most impressive products

You could both be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that the Poly Tower has to be in the same association as Poly1 to market access to the bungalows. Right? Poly Tower could very well be a totally separate association and DVC still point out the glorious bungalows and how as a direct purchaser, you can access those amenities that are right next door to your new "home."

 

[BamaGuy44]

You could both be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that the Poly Tower has to be in the same association as Poly1 to market access to the bungalows. Right? Poly Tower could very well be a totally separate association and DVC still point out the glorious bungalows and how as a direct purchaser, you can access those amenities that are right next door to your new "home."

True I don't think them wanting to highlight the bungalows in sales pitches necessarily means they would want Poly2 in the same association. I'm sure there are factors that will go into that decision that we, looking in from the outside, would have no clue about. I'm absolutely horrible at guessing what they will do, so I don't even try lol. I'm very likely to buy at Poly2, and I can't even decide if I would prefer it in the old association or new. Both will have pros and cons

 

[havoc315]

You could both be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that the Poly Tower has to be in the same association as Poly1 to market access to the bungalows. Right? Poly Tower could very well be a totally separate association and DVC still point out the glorious bungalows and how as a direct purchaser, you can access those amenities that are right next door to your new "home."

It would be misrepresentation bordering on fraud if they started giving tours of the bungalows as part of the sales presentation on Poly 2. Sure, they could point in the distance, “see those bungalows down there… like every DVC property, you can book them at the 7 month mark subject to availability.”

But someone walks in, “I’m here about Poly 2”. … “let’s take a tour of a Poly 1 bungalow” — that would get Disney into legal hot water.

 

[Sandisw]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you underestimate how many people buy into Poly on the fantasy of staying at the bungalows some time. So many people buy on emotion, during their trip to WDW. Not sitting around crunching point charts.

I’m not saying they are not a wow factor. But even with a new association, they can market that the only way to get both the tower AND the bungalows is direct.

Resale only gets you one or the other if the restrictions are in place.

No restrictions means resale gets you everything. Why go direct then if you can get access to them much cheaper?

Of course they can’t market them as part of home resort booking, but they can make them something that is possible.

Just like they do now when the say that you can access them, the cabins and all the other resorts.

In other words, no different than now

 

[BeachClub2014]

It would be misrepresentation bordering on fraud if they started giving tours of the bungalows as part of the sales presentation on Poly 2. Sure, they could point in the distance, “see those bungalows down there… like every DVC property, you can book them at the 7 month mark subject to availability.”

But someone walks in, “I’m here about Poly 2”. … “let’s take a tour of a Poly 1 bungalow” — that would get Disney into legal hot water.

I wasn't suggesting that at all. Merely pointing out that from a marketing perspective which association of the Poly Tower lands is irrelevant. DVC is adept at selling. They certainly emphasize theme park-filled vacations as members of DVC. They do it in a fashion that "sells" the connection without promising access to the parks. They also "sell" the access to a wide variety of accommodations without getting themselves into legal hot water.

 

[BamaGuy44]

It would be misrepresentation bordering on fraud if they started giving tours of the bungalows as part of the sales presentation on Poly 2. Sure, they could point in the distance, “see those bungalows down there… like every DVC property, you can book them at the 7 month mark subject to availability.”

But someone walks in, “I’m here about Poly 2”. … “let’s take a tour of a Poly 1 bungalow” — that would get Disney into legal hot water.

Clearly they wouldn't give tours of the bungalows trying to sell poly2, if it were in its own association. Definitely the pointing to them in the distance thing .When we toured Poly 1, they showed us a studio and then were like "The bungalows are amazing, want to see one?" We checked it out, even though we knew there was a 0% chance of booking one, because hey, why not?

But they also asked us if we were aware of all the other cool stuff at the other monorail resorts we'd have easy access to while staying at Poly. They don't do the hard sell like other TS, but they know what they're doing.

 

[havoc315]

I’m not saying they are not a wow factor. But even with a new association, they can market that the only way to get both the tower AND the bungalows is direct.

Resale only gets you one or the other if the restrictions are in place.

No restrictions means resale gets you everything. Why go direct then if you can get access to them much cheaper?

Of course they can’t market them as part of home resort booking, but they can make them something that is possible.

Just like they do now when the say that you can access them, the cabins and all the other resorts.

In other words, no different than now

All true. But that's my point -- Most of the sales are on the emotion of the people visiting and taking the tour on their trip. They aren't even having the direct vs re-sale conversation. A big chunk of those taking the tour don't even know the re-sale market exists. Sales guides don't volunteer in their presentation that you can also go save money buying re-sale.

The marketing point of one association is indeed to take prospective buyers on the tour of the bungalows along with the tower. Tell the prospective buyer, "this is what you're buying.. this brand new tower AND these amazing bungalows."

If it's a separate association, the bungalows become a footnote. "Oh.. you want to know about those bungalows over there? They are part of a separate association, but you would have the ability to book them at 7 months just like all DVC properties"

As you said -- The bungalows have a wow factor. A wow factor that can lead to a signature on the dotted line. You lose that wow factor with a second association.

 

[havoc315]

I wasn't suggesting that at all. Merely pointing out that from a marketing perspective which association of the Poly Tower lands is irrelevant. DVC is adept at selling. They certainly emphasize theme park-filled vacations as members of DVC. They do it in a fashion that "sells" the connection without promising access to the parks. They also "sell" the access to a wide variety of accommodations without getting themselves into legal hot water.

But there is a huge difference between taking a prospective buyer on a tour of the bungalow and saying, "you can buy THIS" vs "and in addition to this tower, subject to availability, you can also book 14 other resorts including Poly bungalows that you can see off in the distance and you can take a tour with a different sales rep if you want but please remember it is not included in this association"


No matter how adept Disney may be, there is a world of difference in the ability to market the bungalows if they aren't part of the association. They can't say anything that might potentially mislead a buyer into believing they have equal access to the bungalows.

 

[havoc315]

Clearly they wouldn't give tours of the bungalows trying to sell poly2, if it were in its own association. Definitely the pointing to them in the distance thing .When we toured Poly 1, they showed us a studio and then were like "The bungalows are amazing, want to see one?" We checked it out, even though we knew there was a 0% chance of booking one, because hey, why not?

But they also asked us if we were aware of all the other cool stuff at the other monorail resorts we'd have easy access to while staying at Poly. They don't do the hard sell like other TS, but they know what they're doing.

But that's the difference.
You'd take the tour of the tower. They wouldn't be able to say, "the bungalows are amazing, want to see one?"
Instead, all they could say would be, "and there are lots of other cool resorts like CCV which includes cabins, Poly 1 which includes those bungalows over there, Riviera, etc. If you want to see one of those other properties, please do see the sales rep at the DVC desk of that property"
They could include the bungalows in the long list of "other resorts" -- But if they were to particularly highlight the bungalows or offer the tours, it would be seen as misleading the buyer

.

 

[BamaGuy44]

But that's the difference.
You'd take the tour of the tower. They wouldn't be able to say, "the bungalows are amazing, want to see one?"
Instead, all they could say would be, "and there are lots of other cool resorts like CCV which includes cabins, Poly 1 which includes those bungalows over there, Riviera, etc. If you want to see one of those other properties, please do see the sales rep at the DVC desk of that property"
They could include the bungalows in the long list of "other resorts" -- But if they were to particularly highlight the bungalows or offer the tours, it would be seen as misleading the buyer

.

Like I said, they definitely wouldn't offer tours. But saying it's a cool thing right next door to your new home resort, sure.

 

[BeachClub2014]

But there is a huge difference between taking a prospective buyer on a tour of the bungalow and saying, "you can buy THIS" vs "and in addition to this tower, subject to availability, you can also book 14 other resorts including Poly bungalows that you can see off in the distance and you can take a tour with a different sales rep if you want but please remember it is not included in this association"


No matter how adept Disney may be, there is a world of difference in the ability to market the bungalows if they aren't part of the association. They can't say anything that might potentially mislead a buyer into believing they have equal access to the bungalows.

I understand your point, and that you are committed to the concept that having the new Poly Tower included in the existing Poly 1 association. At least from the marketing of the bungalows perspective. I don't agree so I guess we can just agree to disagree on that piece.

I believe that DVC is very, very good at marketing and selling, and if they feel that the bungalows further their pitch, then they can figure out a way to reference them that isn't illegal, immoral, or fattening.

 

[havoc315]

I understand your point, and that you are committed to the concept that having the new Poly Tower included in the existing Poly 1 association. At least from the marketing of the bungalows perspective. I don't agree so I guess we can just agree to disagree on that piece.

I'm not "committed" to anything. I have no clue whether it will be the same association or not. Just saying the marketing of the bungalows is a good reason to keep it in Poly 1. Whether they will do that, I have absolutely no clue.

I believe that DVC is very, very good at marketing and selling, and if they feel that the bungalows further their pitch, then they can figure out a way to reference them that isn't illegal, immoral, or fattening.

Only to the same degree they already pitch the bungalows to someone touring Riviera or Grand Floridian. Do anything more than that, you open yourself up to legal exposure.

 

[wnielsen1]

I am fully committed that it will be a new association. Disney will do what is best for Disney and that means a new association.

 

[mustinjourney]

Maybe. The announcement was intentionally vague. I’m actually leaning to no at this point, and I think I would have leaned yes a month ago.

There is precedent for the same association (SSR treehouses or Poly2) but also for a different one (CCV and BR).

I think it is going to be the same association just like they did with VGF. It will sell faster, and disney won't have to give a 50 year length of term. Win/win for them. Plus it will solve some of the point imbalance caused by the point-heavy bungalows.

 

[mustinjourney]

It’s less than the average Poly guest. Much much less. The average Poly guest is paying $700-$800 per night plus tickets and dining. A DVC guest isn’t spending more on tickets than the average guest. A DVC guest is paying the same or less on dining than an average guest (the whole point of the kitchens). The only place where a DVC guest spends more than the average guest is in the direct point purchase. Take away that direct point purchase — the resale buyer is giving a fraction of the revenue from an average cash guest or an average direct buyer.

you're forgetting to include cost of acquisition for each guest.

Once you're in DVC -- you are held captive. Those once in a lifetime guests require a lot more nudging to go to WDW...which means more marketing expenses in order to convert someone into visiting WDW.

 

[mustinjourney]

I don’t think ‘circumvent’ is quite the right word - after all DVC set the program up as a deeded interest that can be resold subject to their ROFR, so they designed the product to have a secondary market.
I also disagree w/ the statement that Disney, as a company isn’t getting anything directly - after all they get a substantial & steady stream of income from MFs paid by both direct & resale owners which they use to defray the costs of operating the DVC portion of resorts.

If Disney was able to successfully fill those deluxe rooms at $700+ per night w/ high spending guests they would not have converted cash rooms at AKL, Poly, WL, & VGF to DVC. DVC whether purchased direct or resale guarantees that a % of visitors will occupy those villas every year & buy tickets, food, etc. & Disney’s bean counters must think that the revenue from having a % of former high cost cash rooms occupied by repeat visitors + their guaranteed MFs is worth more than trying to rent those converted rooms to cash guests.

total agree with your last statement. DVC allows WDW hotels to run at a much much higher occupancy. It's similar to having coupons in order to capture a larger market base...except in our case, we're paying a large sum up front to be able to cash in our coupons later...so I guess it's kind of like the old school Gold-C coupon books.

 

[mustinjourney]

Use whatever term you want. I'm not suggesting there is anything improper about re-sale. It's one of the benefits of purchasing -- the ability to re-sell. But you buy re-sale, you absolutely are circumventing Disney. You're going to re-sale brokers with no Disney affiliation. Disney doesn't directly get a penny from the re-sale.


1 -- That's not how MF work. They don't "defray" the costs, they are a direct proportion of the expenses for that point ownership. Disney doesn't "pocket" a penny from MF... but more importantly..
2 -- In the case of re-sale, the MFs are already being paid by the prior owner. So the resale gives Disney absolutely nothing that they didn't already have. They were already getting the MFs paid.
3 -- And what if the owner just stops paying MFs? Then Disney forecloses and gets to sell expensive direct points!
So mere continuation of MFs payment are totally neutral to Disney.



Yes, they may more from DVC than most cash rooms! Absolutely! But they still make a ton more from cash rooms than from re-sale! A room that gets $700-$800 per night for 80-90% of nights is still a heck of a lot more profitable than a re-sale buyer who pays Disney $0 directly.




Absolutely not. The reason they ROFR is because they know they can make money from cash guests and/or re-sell at Direct at profit.

It's really simply -- ROFR and the re-sale restrictions both exist because re-sale provides Disney very little benefit. If re-sale was so great for Disney's pocket, then they wouldn't put in the restrictions, they wouldn't ROFR. They would actively be encouraging re-sale, which they clearly don't do.

This isn't controversial -- The reason Disney discourages re-sale (with a tedious ROFR process, with re-sale restrictions) is because re-sale doesn't much benefit Disney.

I've seen Disney AP owners make a similar argument -- "We should get better perks because we are such big Disney spenders!" -- But the average AP owner actually spends far less at Disney than they can get from regular average guests filling that space. Same with DVC -- re-sale DVC owners provide Disney very little direct monetary benefit. Disney makes money from cash rooms and direct buyers.

my only push back is Disney does actually profit from the Maintenance fees. They take a fairly sizeable chunk as part of their administrative fees. And they use DVC maintenance fees to help offset the fixed and operational costs that are shared with the hotel sides (e.g., monorail, skyliner, etc...).