Poly1 v (?) Poly 2

[rljslo]

Hi all... currently trying to purchase a monorail resale. BLT is first choice - POLY is 2nd... Question: If I buy a resale to Poly1 now - I will have access to Studio's and Bungalows (and no access to Riviera - not worried because we have a blue card for our other resort)... BUT - is it possible that if I buy Poly1 now at resale that I may not be able to use those points at the new Poly Tower (Poly2)? In other words, it'll be like Riviera? If so - what an awful way to treat OBVIOUSLY loyal guests who are straight-up COMMITTING to spending SIGNIFICANT $$ to the company. Just sayin'.... (Should I use more capital letters?)

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, there is a possibility that your Poly resale points will be restricted from the Poly tower.

The announcement did not state whether it would be part of PVB or a new resort and was particularly vague..unlike when the new rooms at VGF was announced as being the same association.

So, if using points at Poly tower is important, I’d wait to get more detail. Unfortunately I don’t think we will get it until next year.

 

[npatellye]

It’s possible. We don’t know yet what will happen. I said we were done adding points but Poly 2 could sway me to add another 150-200 if it is a different association. If it’s not, then I’ll be fine what we have and not feel the need to give DVC more of my money.

 

[RoseGold]

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).

 

[havoc315]

what an awful way to treat OBVIOUSLY loyal guests who are straight-up COMMITTING to spending SIGNIFICANT $$ to the company. Just sayin'.... (Should I use more capital letters?)

We don't know for sure. I think it is likely you will be able to use the resale points at Poly 2.

But I don't get the outrage of your last statement. The whole point of the re-sale restrictions is to draw an incentive to spend significant $$$ to the company. When you're buying re-sale, Disney isn't getting anything directly. You're circumventing Disney, and then complaining you might not get all the Disney benefits that come with going directly through Disney.
Yes, Disney would make money indirectly from you as you buy tickets, dining, etc. But ultimately, they are making a significantly smaller amount of money from you as opposed to a direct buyer.

Basically, Disney is rewarding those who do spend the most significantly and loyally by going direct through Disney. It's simple American capitalism. If you're going to circumvent Disney to save money, understand you might not get all the benefits that go directly with Disney.

Of course -- Even if you buy direct, it's unknown whether you'd have home resort advantage at Poly 2. We should get more clarity on that next year some time.

 

[rljslo]

We don't know for sure. I think it is likely you will be able to use the resale points at Poly 2.

But I don't get the outrage of your last statement. The whole point of the re-sale restrictions is to draw an incentive to spend significant $$$ to the company. When you're buying re-sale, Disney isn't getting anything directly. You're circumventing Disney, and then complaining you might not get all the Disney benefits that come with going directly through Disney.
Yes, Disney would make money indirectly from you as you buy tickets, dining, etc. But ultimately, they are making a significantly smaller amount of money from you as opposed to a direct buyer.

Basically, Disney is rewarding those who do spend the most significantly and loyally by going direct through Disney. It's simple American capitalism. If you're going to circumvent Disney to save money, understand you might not get all the benefits that go directly with Disney.

Of course -- Even if you buy direct, it's unknown whether you'd have home resort advantage at Poly 2. We should get more clarity on that next year some time.

Havoc - you are correct (and I'm not outraged - although the capital letters may have given that impression lol)... I guess my point is that whether you buy direct or indirect.... you are a customer committing to spending waaaayyyy more $$ than the average Disney guest on tickets, dining, etc. I get that buying direct gives Disney more $$ up front. My thought is that if I buy direct or resale - I am still committing to a more serious investment than most guests - and don't want to be treated like Disney "caught" me trying to rip them off .... In other words, please respect the financial commitment we are making to the company. Yes - it is not as much as direct buyers but yes- it is a lot more than the average guest.

 

[Sandisw]

Havoc - you are correct (and I'm not outraged - although the capital letters may have given that impression lol)... I guess my point is that whether you buy direct or indirect.... you are a customer committing to spending waaaayyyy more $$ than the average Disney guest on tickets, dining, etc. I get that buying direct gives Disney more $$ up front. My thought is that if I buy direct or resale - I am still committing to a more serious investment than most guests - and don't want to be treated like Disney "caught" me trying to rip them off .... In other words, please respect the financial commitment we are making to the company. Yes - it is not as much as direct buyers but yes- it is a lot more than the average guest.

For now, resale still gets you a lot of options. Who knows what the future holds but obviously DVD has decided that they want to make the product they sell more attractive then buying on the secondary market.

For some, like me, it’s worth the extra money to go direct and have access to all. For others, it’s not.

At least there are different options for people and while resale might not get someone all of it, it does come with some savings.

 

[havoc315]

Havoc - you are correct (and I'm not outraged - although the capital letters may have given that impression lol)... I guess my point is that whether you buy direct or indirect.... you are a customer committing to spending waaaayyyy more $$ than the average Disney guest on tickets, dining, etc. I get that buying direct gives Disney more $$ up front. My thought is that if I buy direct or resale - I am still committing to a more serious investment than most guests - and don't want to be treated like Disney "caught" me trying to rip them off .... In other words, please respect the financial commitment we are making to the company. Yes - it is not as much as direct buyers but yes- it is a lot more than the average guest.

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.

 

[dsanner106]

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.

 

[sndral]

We don't know for sure. I think it is likely you will be able to use the resale points at Poly 2.

But I don't get the outrage of your last statement. The whole point of the re-sale restrictions is to draw an incentive to spend significant $$$ to the company. When you're buying re-sale, Disney isn't getting anything directly. You're circumventing Disney, and then complaining you might not get all the Disney benefits that come with going directly through Disney.
Yes, Disney would make money indirectly from you as you buy tickets, dining, etc. But ultimately, they are making a significantly smaller amount of money from you as opposed to a direct buyer.

Basically, Disney is rewarding those who do spend the most significantly and loyally by going direct through Disney. It's simple American capitalism. If you're going to circumvent Disney to save money, understand you might not get all the benefits that go directly with Disney.

Of course -- Even if you buy direct, it's unknown whether you'd have home resort advantage at Poly 2. We should get more clarity on that next year some time.

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.

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.

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.

 

[havoc315]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

And in the end, DVD will make the program whatever they want it to be to meet their needs to increase profits.

I think whatever gets decided for Poly tower will be because they think that is the best way to meet both short and long term goals!

 

[havoc315]

And in the end, DVD will make the program whatever they want it to be to meet their needs to increase profits.

I think whatever gets decided for Poly tower will be because they think that is the best way to meet both short and long term goals!

Agreed, but to be clear "guest satisfaction" is part of their goals, and does affect their profits. So maximizing every short-term penny isn't necessarily their goal. (or such goal would be short-sighted).

Looking at Poly 1 vs Poly 2 and the associations, even the pure profit angle is unclear.

A new association: Re-sale restrictions are part of the long term plan to drive people away from re-sale towards direct purchasing. Further, a new association would let them sell 50 year contracts, in theory worth a bit more. It would also encourage existing Poly owners to add-on points if they want home privileges. And, it would make direct "the only game in town" for the first year or two of sales.

Pure profit angle in joining to the same association: Inclusion of the bungalows could be a selling point of the new towers. A single association is probably simpler and cheaper administratively. A single association may allow for better point distribution over the course of the year, improving the balance and guest satisfaction.

I feel CCV being a new association may be a somewhat unique circumstance as there simply weren't enough years left to fold it into the existing association. On the other hand, maybe CCV is the new way of doing things and GFV was the exception -- getting folded in only because GFV was such a small association and because the new building was all studios.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Pure profit angle in joining to the same association: Inclusion of the bungalows could be a selling point of the new towers. A single association is probably simpler and cheaper administratively. A single association may allow for better point distribution over the course of the year, improving the balance and guest satisfaction.

If the Poly Tower were a new association, access to the bungalows in Poly1 could still be part of the selling spiel. If you purchase Poly Tower points directly, you'd have access to them. DVC can be very creative in weaving all sorts of elements into its sales pitch.

One thing to bear in mind on guest satisfaction and balancing point distribution is that the perception isn't necessarily universal among guests/owners. Any one change may increase one person's satisfaction, have no impact at all on the next person's satisfaction, and actually, reduce the satisfaction of the next person.

 

[sethschroeder]

If the Poly Tower were a new association, access to the bungalows in Poly1 could still be part of the selling spiel.

I think DVC realized how it wasn't helping sell.

They lowered point requirements for the Cabins and then removed the idea all together now on 3 straight resorts.

Maybe they are in POLY 2 but will want to have that confirmed and not just in possibly drawings before I believe it.

 

[Sandisw]

If the Poly Tower were a new association, access to the bungalows in Poly1 could still be part of the selling spiel. If you purchase Poly Tower points directly, you'd have access to them. DVC can be very creative in weaving all sorts of elements into its sales pitch.

One thing to bear in mind on guest satisfaction and balancing point distribution is that the perception isn't necessarily universal among guests/owners. Any one change may increase one person's satisfaction, have no impact at all on the next person's satisfaction, and actually, reduce the satisfaction of the next person.

Great point about the bungalows If they are new, direct is still the only way to get them at 11 months unless you buy PVB resale but then you don’t get the tower at all.

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.

Plus, I can see them saying that with Poly tower being new, you get advantage over all other owners, including those who own the longhouses.

So strategic marketing can defiantly work.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I think DVC realized how it wasn't helping sell.

They lowered point requirements for the Cabins and then removed the idea all together now on 3 straight resorts.

Maybe they are in POLY 2 but will want to have that confirmed and not just in possibly drawings before I believe it.

You could be right. I wasn't really commenting on the effectiveness of the strategy of using bungalows as a selling point, I was just pointing out that DVC could still use them as part of the spiel regardless of whether the Poly Tower was part of the Poly1 association or a new, stand-alone association.

 

[TraderStitch]

So if Poly Tower does end up being with Poly association and no restrictions, doesn't that make the argument even stronger to lift the resale restriction on Riviera? I feel DVC put a line in the sand on that one so anything new would need to follow the same ruling, no? I can understand why VGF didn't have a different association because the building already existed, it was more or less a referb. haha.

 

[BeachClub2014]

So if Poly Tower does end up being with Poly association and no restrictions, doesn't that make the argument even stronger to lift the resale restriction on Riviera? I feel DVC put a line in the sand on that one so anything new would need to follow the same ruling, no? I can understand why VGF didn't have a different association because the building already existed, it was more or less a referb. haha.

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.

 

[Sandisw]

So if Poly Tower does end up being with Poly association and no restrictions, doesn't that make the argument even stronger to lift the resale restriction on Riviera? I feel DVC put a line in the sand on that one so anything new would need to follow the same ruling, no? I can understand why VGF didn't have a different association because the building already existed, it was more or less a referb. haha.

They gave themselves the ability to remove them.

I do not think they will leave RIV as a stand alone with them and I think it will take a lot for them to reverse course on that plan.

But, if they decide to not give Poly tower restrictions…it could always be new without them but can’t have them if part of PVB..then it means they changed their entire strategy of making a difference between buying resale and direct.

Remember, the removal means all restrictions. The only reason they can exist is that resale points bought since 2019 can’t trade into RIV because RIV resale points trade into those other resorts.

So, it comes down to whether or not they want to change the long term goals they had when RIV was put in play.