Price Increases Mid January

[SL6827]

They already did at Aulani...

Oh, lawd. Dare I ask? It seems like I remember something with the dues with Aulani, but I was thinking it was bad, but was an honest mistake on someone's part. I guess not?

 

[Madame]

Oh, lawd. Dare I ask? It seems like I remember something with the dues with Aulani, but I was thinking it was bad, but was an honest mistake on someone's part. I guess not?

Speculation that the dues were set too low on purpose in order to boost original sales.

 

[SL6827]

Speculation that the dues were set too low on purpose in order to boost original sales.

Oh, that is terrible. And they had to go back and subsidize the dues of those who originally bought in, right?

 

[Madame]

Oh, that is terrible. And they had to go back and subsidize the dues of those who originally bought in, right?

Yes for the lifetime of those contracts making them attractive as resales too.

 

[SL6827]

Yes for the lifetime of those contracts making them attractive as resales too.

Well that is good. That is a complete shame they did that. I just have a gut feeling they will try to keep pushing the envelope as far as they can to make a profit, legal or perhaps if they could get away with it, not.

 

[Ben E N]

Well that is good. That is a complete shame they did that. I just have a gut feeling they will try to keep pushing the envelope as far as they can to make a profit, legal or perhaps if they could get away with it, not.

I really don't think they were trying to do anything illegal, or to scam buyers. It seems like an honest, and dumb, booking error that cost many in DVC their jobs. DVC did the right thing by not increasing the dues for those who bought in at those prices. Completely different from a bait and switch.

 

[SL6827]

I really don't think they were trying to do anything illegal, or to scam buyers. It seems like an honest, and dumb, booking error that cost many in DVC their jobs. DVC did the right thing by not increasing the dues for those who bought in at those prices. Completely different from a bait and switch.

Well hopefully it was an honest mistake. Who knows for sure? Of course it would be nice to think it was honest and not intentional.

 

[Madame]

I really don't think they were trying to do anything illegal, or to scam buyers. It seems like an honest, and dumb, booking error that cost many in DVC their jobs. DVC did the right thing by not increasing the dues for those who bought in at those prices. Completely different from a bait and switch.

Could have been a mistake. Pretty sure Hawaii made sure they “did the right thing.”

 

[Ben E N]

Could have been a mistake. Pretty sure Hawaii made sure they “did the right thing.”

Either way, they in no way stuck it to the members.

 

[Madame]

Either way, they in no way stuck it to the members.

Sure, but they couldn’t have even if they’d wanted to. I know I’m splitting hairs here, but motivation & intent are more important to me personally than outcome. YMMV.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

DVC did the right thing by not increasing the dues for those who bought in at those prices.

Pretty sure Hawaii made sure they “did the right thing.”

Yes, it was part of their legal settlement with the state of Hawaii. Disney wasn't given a choice whether to stick it to the members ongoing or not. Hawaii could have taken their license entirely, so Disney had to make it right. Disney HAD BEEN sticking it to the members by understating costs.

 

[ScubaCat]

Suspect there will be a lot of current owners who were eyeing Riviera now letting those thoughts go.......

Count me as one of them! No way would I consider a direct contract at Riviera now! Which really pisses me off as I was really looking forward to it!

Could be, but for every one this describes, there are ~1000 others who have no clue and will buy anyway. Thus, the change.

 

[DougEMG]

I really don't think they were trying to do anything illegal, or to scam buyers. It seems like an honest, and dumb, booking error that cost many in DVC their jobs. DVC did the right thing by not increasing the dues for those who bought in at those prices. Completely different from a bait and switch.

Disagree. I think it was intentional and they were caught this time. They effectively did the same thing at BLT (otherwise how do you explain the much higher increase in MF at BLT since they sold out than at any other resort) and didn't get caught, so why not try it again at Aulani.

 

[SL6827]

Disagree. I think it was intentional and they were caught this time. They effectively did the same thing at BLT (otherwise how do you explain the much higher increase in MF at BLT since they sold out than at any other resort) and didn't get caught, so why not try it again at Aulani.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

[Brian Noble]

I would argue the aberrations of pricing during the Great Recession was more influenced by the absence of ROFR than the supply and demand forces as you’re suggesting.

In a normal healthy economy, and what has been observed historically, when Disney increases direct pricing resale prices have followed in lock step.

Again, I disagree. Disney dropped ROFR because the supply of contracts sufficiently out-stripped demand. They had their own points to (try to) sell, they didn't need more.

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

Disagree. I think it was intentional and they were caught this time. They effectively did the same thing at BLT (otherwise how do you explain the much higher increase in MF at BLT since they sold out than at any other resort) and didn't get caught, so why not try it again at Aulani.

...AND if it was not intentional, (and I’m guessing there was an internal paper trail proving it was intentional), they would not have fired all those executives.

 

[SL6827]

Makes me really wonder about the cooking of the books for the dues on all the other resorts. Of course all I own at is OKW, but I know they could do it with any of them.

 

[Bing Showei]

Again, I disagree. Disney dropped ROFR because the supply of contracts sufficiently out-stripped demand. They had their own points to (try to) sell, they didn't need more.

Wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of confusing correlation with causation; absent numbers or insight from Disney, it's all academic.

But I stand by that, in a normal, healthy economy, direct pricing pulls resale pricing up along with it. I'll also maintain that ROFR plays a role of setting a floor on the resale market. This will become even more apparent when Riviera contracts hit the resale market.

 

[Mumof4mice]

Sure, but they couldn’t have even if they’d wanted to. I know I’m splitting hairs here, but motivation & intent are more important to me personally than outcome. YMMV.

Motivation and intent are important for me in family and friends. When there is no personal relationship, outcome is what matters. Doesn't matter why a company made the mistake, if they couldn't afford the fine issued by the Hawaiian government and decided to declare bankruptcy.

...AND if it was not intentional, (and I’m guessing there was an internal paper trail proving it was intentional), they would not have fired all those executives.

Losing Disney hundreds of millions both in sales (timing is money) and dues is a good reason for termination. If a provable paper trail was discovered that's criminal incompetence.

 

[Mumof4mice]

But I stand by that, in a normal, healthy economy, direct pricing pulls resale pricing up along with it. I'll also maintain that ROFR plays a role of setting a floor on the resale market. This will become even more apparent when Riviera contracts hit the resale market.

I agree in a good economy resale price is largely determined by direct pricing and ROFR.

ShannonG - $128-$6455-50-SSR-Sep-100/18, 50/19, 50/20 -sent 12/10, passed 1/9

See this, over on the ROFR thread. I admit I'm eyeing the explosion of listings in the last 48 hours. (Non cheap enough to fit the bill unfortunately) There's no such thing as bad publicity.