Poly1 v (?) Poly 2

[Sandisw]

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.

I do get that, but as long as it’s one association, the buyer doesn’t have to buy direct to get access to it all. They simply can buy Poly on the resale market for the same exact product, or buy a different resort and access the tower and the bungalows at 7 months,

The only piece that DVD controls to make resale and direct points points different is where they can be used. While they can promote membership extras as a benefit, in the end, those rely on deals with other divisions or businesses. Just look at APs…they can’t control that.

But, resale restrictions on use of points is completely up to them. So, which gets more buyers to choose direct over resale?

Points bought direct have more options than those resale. As I said, Poly tower being a new association with restrictions allows them to sell the tower and the bungalows as options that you can only get with direct points, even if it means the bungalows are a trade at 7 month

And, when I was considering RIV, they did give us tour of the BCV rooms since we were staying that, along with the cabins when we visited WL. So, it is not unheard of to show what you can do with your points at other resorts.

In the end, it will really come down to two things….do they want to keep a product that is different when bought from them or do they no longer care and figure that eliminating restrictions will boost sales.

 

[havoc315]

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.

No, it's included. They already got that guest once they sold the direct contract. They already have the lifetime commitment. If that lifetime committed person re-sells their contract to someone else, it's a neutral effect for Disney. Just continues what they already had.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

There are plenty who believe they can not move points from the bungalows to reallocate into the new tower to equalize things…so that alone won’t happen.

I have said this a lot but there is no requirement that Poly tower has to be offered as a 50 year term. It can end in 2066 to match PvB and be new.

Not sure why it would sell faster if the same because the new buyers get access going the resale route. No sense to pay more for the same exact thing.

 

[havoc315]

I do get that, but as long as it’s one association, the buyer doesn’t have to buy direct to get access to it all. They simply can buy Poly on the resale market for the same exact product, or buy a different resort and access the tower and the bungalows at 7 months,

Correct, but we are talking about 2 different things.
The immediate marketing of Poly points up for sale in 2024 versus the long-term plan to discourage re-sale in general, particularly to people like found on these boards.

I'm talking about the marketing to the person on a WDW trip who takes a DVC tour one afternoon. Re-sale isn't even part of that discussion 99% of the time. They don't know they can just buy Poly on the re-sale market. Just like most people taking GFV tours today aren't thinking to themselves, "oh... I can still get all of GFV if I buy on the resale market."

The re-sale restrictions aren't about prompting those on-site prospective DVC customers to go direct -- The vast majority don't even know that such a big re-sale market even exists.

The re-sale restrictions are about shrinking the re-sale market and preventing it from growing more.

The only piece that DVD controls to make resale and direct points points different is where they can be used. While they can promote membership extras as a benefit, in the end, those rely on deals with other divisions or businesses. Just look at APs…they can’t control that.

But, resale restrictions on use of points is completely up to them. So, which gets more buyers to choose direct over resale.

Agreed. But that's not part of the marketing for the on-site visitor taking the tour. No guide is ever going to volunteer to a prospective buyer that they could go save money buying re-sale. They will only discuss direct vs re-sale if the guest specifically asks.

Points bought direct have more options than those resale. As I said, Poly tower being a new association with restrictions allows them to sell the tower and the bungalows as options that you can only get with direct points, even if it means the bungalows are a trade at 7 month

Yes, they can present the bungalows as an option -- along with Old Key West, Grand Floridian, Riviera, etc.
But if they were to say anything to suggest special access to the bungalows, it would open them up to a lawsuit for fraud.

Again, I'm talking about the value of the marketing to the on-site guest taking the tour. There is a huge difference between:
"Welcome to the Poly DVC tour, we are going to show you a tower 2 bedroom lock-off and a Bungalow... this is the home resort you would be buying... there are other properties as well that you get to enjoy"
versus
"Welcome to the Poly DVC tour, we are going to show you around the Tower rooms, this is the home resort you are buying. If you look down in the distance, you can see Bay Lake Tower, Polynesian Bungalows, Grand Floridian Villas.. there are 14 properties in total, you also have access subject to 7 month availability to these great properties and tours of those properties can be arranged as well"

I've taken the Poly DVC tour -- The bungalows ARE the tour. A quick little glimpse of the studio, and then "now look at this amazing bungalow!"

If Poly 2 is a new association, they can't do that. They can't say, "here is a glimpse of the tower rooms, now let's go look at the amazing bungalows!"

And, when I was considering RIV, they did give us tour of the BCV rooms since we were staying that, along with the cabins when we visited WL. So, it is not unheard of to show what you can do with your points at other resorts.

In the end, it will really come down to two things….do they want to keep a product that is different when bought from them or do they no longer care and figure that eliminating restrictions will boost sales.

My point is it's more complicated than that. They want to maximize their profits, period. Which maximizes profits more -- higher value sales by including the bungalows, discouraging re-sale with restrictions, administrative costs of one association vs two associations, etc.

The re-sale restrictions are a long term play to reduce the resale market. But we see with GFV, they aren't wedded to the restrictions. Including/excluding the restrictions in one property likely has a negligible effect on their profits. In the long term, having more restricted properties, will have a modest effect of increasing their profits by discouraging re-sale.

 

[Sandisw]

Correct, but we are talking about 2 different things.
The immediate marketing of Poly points up for sale in 2024 versus the long-term plan to discourage re-sale in general, particularly to people like found on these boards.

I'm talking about the marketing to the person on a WDW trip who takes a DVC tour one afternoon. Re-sale isn't even part of that discussion 99% of the time. They don't know they can just buy Poly on the re-sale market. Just like most people taking GFV tours today aren't thinking to themselves, "oh... I can still get all of GFV if I buy on the resale market."

The re-sale restrictions aren't about prompting those on-site prospective DVC customers to go direct -- The vast majority don't even know that such a big re-sale market even exists.

The re-sale restrictions are about shrinking the re-sale market and preventing it from growing more.




Agreed. But that's not part of the marketing for the on-site visitor taking the tour. No guide is ever going to volunteer to a prospective buyer that they could go save money buying re-sale. They will only discuss direct vs re-sale if the guest specifically asks.



Yes, they can present the bungalows as an option -- along with Old Key West, Grand Floridian, Riviera, etc.
But if they were to say anything to suggest special access to the bungalows, it would open them up to a lawsuit for fraud.

Again, I'm talking about the value of the marketing to the on-site guest taking the tour. There is a huge difference between:
"Welcome to the Poly DVC tour, we are going to show you a tower 2 bedroom lock-off and a Bungalow... this is the home resort you would be buying... there are other properties as well that you get to enjoy"
versus
"Welcome to the Poly DVC tour, we are going to show you around the Tower rooms, this is the home resort you are buying. If you look down in the distance, you can see Bay Lake Tower, Polynesian Bungalows, Grand Floridian Villas.. there are 14 properties in total, you also have access subject to 7 month availability to these great properties and tours of those properties can be arranged as well"

I've taken the Poly DVC tour -- The bungalows ARE the tour. A quick little glimpse of the studio, and then "now look at this amazing bungalow!"

If Poly 2 is a new association, they can't do that. They can't say, "here is a glimpse of the tower rooms, now let's go look at the amazing bungalows!"







My point is it's more complicated than that. They want to maximize their profits, period. Which maximizes profits more -- higher value sales by including the bungalows, discouraging re-sale with restrictions, administrative costs of one association vs two associations, etc.

The re-sale restrictions are a long term play to reduce the resale market. But we see with GFV, they aren't wedded to the restrictions. Including/excluding the restrictions in one property likely has a negligible effect on their profits. In the long term, having more restricted properties, will have a modest effect of increasing their profits by discouraging re-sale.

Obviously, if its one association, new buyers get an 11 month advantage and the bungalows and they can make that front and center for marketing purposes.

So, I do understand but it still comes down to whether being able to market the bungalows as part of Poly tower outweighs the benefits of making Poly tower new and restricting all those other people from accessing it.

IMO, the bungalows being part of it won’t be needed to sell Poly tower and therefore, is less important than keeping with the goals of making direct points more valuable than resale points because they offer something resale can’t.

I know your average buyer doesn’t understand or know about resale…but plenty do..enough that DVD started this entire resale restrictions piece in the first place.

Just don’t see this being that important in the grand scheme of things. Now, if they decide restrictions are no longer a goal, then yeah, combine and market the bungalows.

To add, restrictions or not, I do not think VGF would be selling as well right now if one only had 11 month booking rights to the resort studios alone. They needed VGF larger rooms to be part of the mix.

We are certainly speculating, but it would surprise me to see them make this part of PVB. I guess the good part would be that if they do that, then there is a good chance they remove RIV restrictions as well and all the people who bought in spite of it now have a product without them.

 

[havoc315]

I do understand but it still comes down to whether being able to market the bungalows as part of Poly tower outweighs the benefits of making Polt tower new and restricting all those other people from accessing it.

IMO, the bungalows being part of it won’t be needed to sell Poly tower and therefore, is less important than keeping with the goals of making direct points more valuable than resale points because they offer something resale can’t.

I know your average buyer doesn’t understand or know about resale…but plenty do..enough that DVD started this entire resale restrictions piece in the first place.

Just don’t see this being that important in the grand scheme of things. Now, if they decide restrictions are no longer a goal, then yeah, combine and market the bungalows.

To add, restrictions or not, I do not think VGF would be selling as well right now if one only had 11 month booking rights to the resort studios alone. They needed VGF larger rooms to be part of the mix.

Don't disagree with anything you just said. I just think you're downplaying the reasons to keep it united under a single association.
Really, the question is -- Which is the exception and which is the rule -- CCV/BRV or GFV.
By your logic, they should have made GFV a new association... why didn't they? What would be the reason to treat Poly any differently than they did GFV?
Is Poly more like CCV/BRV or is it more like GFV?
To me, it falls in between but much closer to GFV.
Like GFV, it's effectively the addition of one building. Like GFV, it's got another 40+ years under contract.
And like GFV2 added a bunch of studios to a resorts that had all room types, Poly adds all room types to a resort that was all studio.
Where it's more like CCV/BRV -- it's a pretty large new point pool, where GFV combined two rather small point pools. There is a greater distinction between building types. Much like CCV and BRV are housed in two very different buildings, Poly2 is a new tower while Poly1 is long houses.

But that's really the question -- What's the room when adding to a resort that already has DVC? Is it GFV, or is it CCV/BRV?

 

[Sandisw]

Don't disagree with anything you just said. I just think you're downplaying the reasons to keep it united under a single association.
Really, the question is -- Which is the exception and which is the rule -- CCV/BRV or GFV.
By your logic, they should have made GFV a new association... why didn't they? What would be the reason to treat Poly any differently than they did GFV?
Is Poly more like CCV/BRV or is it more like GFV?
To me, it falls in between but much closer to GFV.
Like GFV, it's effectively the addition of one building. Like GFV, it's got another 40+ years under contract.
And like GFV2 added a bunch of studios to a resorts that had all room types, Poly adds all room types to a resort that was all studio.
Where it's more like CCV/BRV -- it's a pretty large new point pool, where GFV combined two rather small point pools. There is a greater distinction between building types. Much like CCV and BRV are housed in two very different buildings, Poly2 is a new tower while Poly1 is long houses.

But that's really the question -- What's the room when adding to a resort that already has DVC? Is it GFV, or is it CCV/BRV?

My logic actually supports why VGF needed to be combined. Selling a glorified hotel room only resort would not sell as well as one that offers all types of room sizes. They really needed VGF because of the 1 and 2 bedroom villas to market it as a complete resort. They don't need PVB studios to market effectively the Poly tower because we, at this point, believe it will have all room sizes in it. It will also have its own pool and amenities right in the building. Other than the bungalows, what does PVB offer a new buyer? Not much.

BPK was simply a new building with basically hotel rooms, which is why I think it was not given its own association. In the end, it really comes down to whether or not DVD wants to abandon resale restrictions and don't care how many resale buyers have access to the new resorts they build.

Personally, I just don't seem them doing that. Even PVB, which was pretty much studios, did at least offer a kitchenette, a split bath, etc. The new VGF rooms can't even give that so might not have been worth it to restrict access.

I guess we will see in another year or so!

 

[Memorymakerfor4]

Is it possible for P2 to be more of a sister resort to P1? Having a different association would allow them to continue with resale restrictions. But also allow P1 owners the ability to book at P2 (and vice versa) at 11 months?

 

[Sandisw]

Is it possible for P2 to be more of a sister resort to P1? Having a different association would allow them to continue with resale restrictions. But also allow P1 owners the ability to book at P2 (and vice versa) at 11 months?

They can’t give them the same booking. Home resort must get at least 1 month advantage.

Now Gould they give PVB better trading than say SSR? Maybe.

 

[Memorymakerfor4]

They can’t give them the same booking. Home resort must get at least 1 month advantage.

Now Gould they give PVB better trading than say SSR? Maybe.

I see a lot of possibility in a scenario like this. Hmm...

 

[lovethesun12]

They can’t give them the same booking. Home resort must get at least 1 month advantage.

Now Gould they give PVB better trading than say SSR? Maybe.

Sounds convoluted....

So in other words, right up Disney's alley.

 

[Paul Stupin]

The main reasons I’ll buy Poly2 have nothing to do with bungalows. I’ll buy because it’s new, beautifully designed, modern, with great accommodations. I don’t think Poly2 buyers will really care about the bungalows, if DVC makes the resort spectacular. And it’s very hard for me to believe that it won’t have a separate association with resale restrictions. That’s Disney’s long term strategy, and I truly doubt they’ll abandon it for either VLH or Poly2.

 

[Sandisw]

Sounds convoluted....

So in other words, right up Disney's alley.

Trying to give PVB a head start to booking the Poly tower over other resorts would be tricky for sure.

BVTC can certainly make different rules for different resorts…so, they might be able to find a way.

But, then why would they…in that case, it’d be much easier to make it one…the whole reason to make Poly tower it’s own association really is to keep resale restrictions.

And, they did not do it with CCV/BRV so I can’t see it happening with PVB and Poly tower….

 

[AvidDisReader]

BRV has an expiration of 2042. CCV selling as part of BRV would of had only a little over 30 year until expiration. That more than anything else was probably why they made them 2 separate Resorts--their internal fear that no one would want to buy with such a short expiration date. This is not the case with Poly, as the resort will still have approx 42 years expiration date. What I see happening is that DVC will scoop up all resale contracts in the 4 to 6 months prior to offering the new contracts on the tower -- just like they did with GFV. This in the hope of spiking demand for the new points.

 

[Sandisw]

BRV has an expiration of 2042. CCV selling as part of BRV would of had only a little over 30 year until expiration. That more than anything else was probably why they made them 2 separate Resorts--their internal fear that no one would want to buy with such a short expiration date. This is not the case with Poly, as the resort will still have approx 42 years expiration date. What I see happening is that DVC will scoop up all resale contracts in the 4 to 6 months prior to offering the new contracts on the tower -- just like they did with GFV. This in the hope of spiking demand for the new points.

Oh, I understand that they had to do CCV/BRV because of the difference in expiration....but just because that situation does not exist for PVB and the Poly tower, doesn't mean they have to roll it into one.

So many ways it will go and the next few months of sales may make them reverse course and decide that restrictions for Poly tower just don't make sense. We also need to see what they will do for VDH...that hasn't been shared either. I realize it is not WDW and could be stand alone...but, if they put them there, I think it at least gives us insight that they are still on the table as an option for Poly tower.

 

[wnielsen1]

BRV has an expiration of 2042. CCV selling as part of BRV would of had only a little over 30 year until expiration. That more than anything else was probably why they made them 2 separate Resorts--their internal fear that no one would want to buy with such a short expiration date. This is not the case with Poly, as the resort will still have approx 42 years expiration date. What I see happening is that DVC will scoop up all resale contracts in the 4 to 6 months prior to offering the new contracts on the tower -- just like they did with GFV. This in the hope of spiking demand for the new points.

They also did not have resale restrictions at the time of CCV. Now they do and they need to decide whether to continue down that path or not.

 

[AvidDisReader]

Oh, I understand that they had to do CCV/BRV because of the difference in expiration....but just because that situation does not exist for PVB and the Poly tower, doesn't mean they have to roll it into one.

So many ways it will go and the next few months of sales may make them reverse course and decide that restrictions for Poly tower just don't make sense. We also need to see what they will do for VDH...that hasn't been shared either. I realize it is not WDW and could be stand alone...but, if they put them there, I think it at least gives us insight that they are still on the table as an option for Poly tower.

I really do not believe the decision on VDH will have any bearing on what goes on at WDW. This is apples to orange comparison.

 

[AvidDisReader]

They also did not have resale restrictions at the time of CCV. Now they do and they need to decide whether to continue down that path or not.

I have said many times that the Resale restrictions are here to stay. My only point is they will not want to have 2 resorts selling at the same time with the restrictions. The resort after the Poly tower will have the restrictions.

 

[wnielsen1]

I have said many times that the Resale restrictions are here to stay. My only point is they will not want to have 2 resorts selling at the same time with the restrictions. The resort after the Poly tower will have the restrictions.

I wish we would find out sooner than later. Poly2 will sell whether it is restricted or not - the question is what does that mean for Riv? Does that mean they are still selling Riv 4 years from now? They probably will be. Are they OK with that? Who knows.

 

[SeasonneRose]

Disney has the option of picking up any and all all resale contracts with ROFR and reselling at top dollar. This means they control the profit they make off of every point. The US govt once went after the auto manufacturers ruling that they could not own used car businesses and could not rebuy their own products. After that they established franchise options for private owners. I often wonder if some of the decisions Disney make are to avoid something similar.

The fact that they aren't picking up Poly right now leads me to believe that it will be a separate association.