RESALE POLICY CHANGE!

[_auroraborealis_]

The reality: A resale buyer has paid just as much to Disney as the original owner, since points do not multiply at sold-out resorts. Whether held by one person or another, every point represents the same gross income to Disney over the life of the contract, and the dues are the same no matter who is paying it. There are no increased expenses.

To claim that resale buyers haven't paid "as much" to be in the club is silly, because the masters of the club, aka DVD, get the same cut either way... UNLESS they basically destroy the resale market and re-sell points (at a profit) direct for sold-out resorts.

 

[bks9581]

My understanding is that these folks will not be impacted.

Right...my point was why shouldn't they be impacted? If the problem is that people are not the original, direct buyers so they deserve less benefits, well that would apply to people that inherit the membership, no?

Marriott Vacation Club and just about any other TS out there delineates a difference in access/perks, etc. for their resale owners as opposed to direct buyers.

I assume this is spelled out when you buy into the Marriott TS? Or is it also a vague statement that no benefits are promised and can be taken away at will? I'm not saying that there can't be differences in what people get based on direct vs. resale purchase. I just think it's pretty crummy the way they so suddenly implemented the changes on people. And I think it would have been a lot more well received with some notice or as mentioned, giving direct buyers extra incentives. Something better than "hey, now you don't have to share this mediocre lounge and free soda with filthy resale scum."

 

[southerngirl528]

I just think it's pretty crummy the way they so suddenly implemented the changes on people. And I think it would have been a lot more well received with some notice or as mentioned, giving direct buyers extra incentives.

You and I are in total agreement here, bks9581.

As to your question about MVC resale, as with DVC the onus is really on me as the resale buyer. When I've done an "owner update" (MVC's member tour) while at my home resort with them (I also own some weeks there I bought direct from MVC), you can bet the sales person will drive home the differences. But when I am buying on the secondary market, I have to inform myself. I did go through a broker but I have no clear recollection of them making a big deal about what perks/options I would NOT be receiving because I bought resale. I did my own homework on that. Now if I had bought that resale week directly from MVC (IOW, like w/DVC they often do offer sold-out resorts for sale when they have exercised ROFR), I WOULD have received full privileges. Interesting stuff, huh?

 

[Mbm1014]

Totally agree with both of you! But when you do your homework and know what you will be getting and what you WON'T be getting before you make the choice to buy DVC resale, and then Disney comes and yanks it out from under you, after you have signed a contract and passed Disney's own ROFR, that is what makes me upset....as on our signed purchase agreement, it only says, that we will not get the 2011 things that they took away(Cruises, Adventures in Disney, etc)...but these new 'exclusions' were not known at time of our signed 'binding' purchase agreement...that Disney passed up on during the ROFR...just very bad business and how it was all executed, and then to tell us we were 'grandfathered' and now say that we will not be, even though we close next week...just not okay in my book...it doesn't sit right with my heart...

 

[littlestar]

"I just think it's pretty crummy the way they so suddenly implemented the changes on people. And I think it would have been a lot more well received with some notice . . .

Exactly! DVC has promoted itself as having the "Disney difference" and they didn't give any advance notice to potential resale buyers. At least Marriott Vacation Club gave notice of the changes. This stinks the way Disney handled this. Disney in the past has been held to a higher standard and they dropped the ball big time with the way they implemented this change with no advance notice of the changes. They deserve the bad press for bungling it. And I own resale and direct contracts.

 

[CMNJ]

Yes and no. Yes, they get less than 50 years, but they also don't pay the mark up of a direct purchase. DVC is not a non profit, so the original purchaser pays that price. Just like Ford doesn't get any benefit from a car being sold used but does if it is certified pre owned, which means they throw in some extras. Same with DVC, you could purchase an older contract from DVC, but you will have to be on a waitlist, pay more, etc.

But you paid for that 4 years of free service by getting a CPO vehicle. BMW clearly states that the maintenance program is not transferable. So you paid a premium to get the CPO.

I think the equivalent to the DVC situation is buying a 2 year old used BMW at Car Max. You wouldn't get the maintenance program that the new owner enjoyed. Your BMW example would be the same as DVC allowing you to pay a premium to get the same benefits as a direct buy owner.

I was thinking the same thing-a used car analogy only works if buying used from another individual transfers the perks originally given to the retail buyer-if you have to buy a used car from the car dealership to get the perks that's the same as having to buy a "used" timeshare from Disney vs the resale market.

 

[sgtdisney]

I get it but you are talking about market fluctuations which is an entirely different animal. If you buy a brand new car, you get a nice warranty and perhaps full servicing for a set term and maybe some other perks. If you buy that car used, you generally do not get all the perks of a brand new purchaser.

Well, many manufacturers allow you to transfer the warranty to the new owner. So, someone buying a greatly reduced, used vehicle can sometimes get the remaining benefits of the original owner.

 

[hayesdvc]

Absolutely agree. Someone's head should be rolling. This was too big a change not to have all "battle stations" well prepped.

I noticed today that the "Sales Chat" link (before you log on) is down on the web site; can't image why ?

 

[sgtdisney]

Here is a question, the new resale owners (lets be honest here they aren't members anymore) will not get membership cards, correct. Does DVD pay for the membership cards, the maintenance of the membership cards and the printing and mailing of them? Or are the dues paying for the membership card? If everyone, member or just owner, pays the same dues, aren't the new "owners" paying for the member's cards? Just curious how that would play out.

 

[Sammie]

From Ken Potrock Letter

"We see this policy change as a very positive step to ensure that, going forward, our Members who purchase directly from Disney Vacation Club receive a premium advantage – in addition to all the magic that Disney has to offer."

This is a very insulting sentence to the members,especially, "going forward".

Going Forward, we don't care about the current members. We only care about the next member.

Going Forward, we only care about the next sucker.

Going Forwards, we are going to ban Resales altogether. Your a member for life .........

Going Forward, we are going to make you hate your DVC Membership so much that you won't use your points. That way we can rent a unit room for $35 per point and the member can pay the annual expenses at $6 per point and DVC keeps the $35 per point!

Going Forward, we are going to make "Magical" t-shirts made from renewable tissue paper collected by our refugee mousekeeping cast members. These Vera Bradley Doonesbury Magical t shirts are extremely ugly and last only a day and are in our empty gift shops with a discount of 3% to the new special magical members. You can recycle your own tissue paper T shirt in a behind the scenes experience for $375 per adult and $350 per child (conception to birth)

Going Forward, DVC guarantees your room is only available after 4 pm not ready at 4 pm. (Sadly, a Front Desk Cast Member at Kidani actually said this to us when we went to check in at 4:30 pm and the room want ready)

Goin Forward, we are going to send out Disney Files Magazine that only speaks of new products that Disney is selling that does not relate to your membership. In fact, we are not going to mention DVC at all. Oops, that is already happening.

Seriously, How stupid and petty DVC has become. I guess I need to be reprocessed for brainwashing. Ken Potruck used the word "Magic" in his letter and I did not aimlessly want to hand over money.

A serious question.......

Who pays for all these DVC Member nights celebrating the 25th Anniversary? Is this coming from annual dues? If so, how are they going to charge a future non-member and not allow them access?

Solution!!!

Pssst......What is Disneys Best Kept Secret??

Answer........Everything we told you is a magical lie!

DVC paid for the the member nights.

 

[bks9581]

You and I are in total agreement here, bks9581.

As to your question about MVC resale, as with DVC the onus is really on me as the resale buyer. When I've done an "owner update" (MVC's member tour) while at my home resort with them (I also own some weeks there I bought direct from MVC), you can bet the sales person will drive home the differences. But when I am buying on the secondary market, I have to inform myself. I did go through a broker but I have no clear recollection of them making a big deal about what perks/options I would NOT be receiving because I bought resale. I did my own homework on that. Now if I had bought that resale week directly from MVC (IOW, like w/DVC they often do offer sold-out resorts for sale when they have exercised ROFR), I WOULD have received full privileges. Interesting stuff, huh?

It is interesting. If someone told me 10 years ago I would own a timeshare, I would have laughed at them. And quite honestly, a big reason I got over the mental hurdle of a timeshare was because Disney's program seemed so different. Disney has long been about the experience they provide being worth more than what you get from other companies. And I think they still do provide a better experience in a lot of areas. But this and the whole, VIP paid parking, outrageous ticket prices to be in the park before and after regular park hours and the rumor of potentially charging for magic bands, resort transportation, etc. makes me wish they were going in a different direction. One of the reasons I have always enjoyed Disney is because I don't feel nickel-and-dimed when I go. Of course you are paying for all that stuff one way or another, but I'd rather it just be lumped in and not feel like someone is always shaking my pockets to see what they can get out of me. Two years ago, I felt very confident that with two small kids, we would be doing Disney trips for many years to come. Lately, all these announcements and changes just make me wonder if I made the right assumption. Anyway, that was off topic, but all contributes to my attitude towards this recent announcement of DVC changes and how Disney treats customers.

 

[ScubaCat]

Here is a question, the new resale owners (lets be honest here they aren't members anymore) will not get membership cards, correct. Does DVD pay for the membership cards, the maintenance of the membership cards and the printing and mailing of them? Or are the dues paying for the membership card? If everyone, member or just owner, pays the same dues, aren't the new "owners" paying for the member's cards? Just curious how that would play out.

I suppose someone could sue and demand that 65 cents be deducted from future resale members' dues, although DVD could just say they're covering it. The benefits themselves aren't funded by dues per the disclosure statement.

 

[TisBit]

I just think it's pretty crummy the way they so suddenly implemented the changes on people. And I think it would have been a lot more well received with some notice or as mentioned, giving direct buyers extra incentives.

I agree with the predicament people are in that have active contracts with Disney and I have a feeling that will be resolved in a week or so. They are most likely already discussing what constitutes a cut off point for being grandfathered and how they can do it. It will most likely have to be that Disney has received the contract package so they can prove it, where as having to have people send in signed contracts isn't very feasible. I think most people will end up ok on it in the end.

As for notice, I think there is a good reason to not give notice. I can only imagine if they said in four weeks, if you buy resale you won't get these benefits...people on the fence will be rushing out to get a contract signed and sent in and it would have compounded the problem they already have, which is the pending sales.

 

[ScubaCat]

I agree with the predicament people are in that have active contracts with Disney and I have a feeling that will be resolved in a week or so. They are most likely already discussing what constitutes a cut off point for being grandfathered and how they can do it. It will most likely have to be that Disney has received the contract package so they can prove it, where as having to have people send in signed contracts isn't very feasible. I think most people will end up ok on it in the end.

As for notice, I think there is a good reason to not give notice. I can only imagine if they said in four weeks, if you buy resale you won't get these benefits...people on the fence will be rushing out to get a contract signed and sent in and it would have compounded the problem they already have, which is the pending sales.

I agree on both items. In an "act of generosity" or something, they'll reinstate perks for those who were already in-process prior to 4/4/16.

Imagine the number of calls and contracts they'd be bombarded with if they'd have given advance notice. That's probably what happened last time.

 

[southerngirl528]

I noticed today that the "Sales Chat" link (before you log on) is down on the web site; can't image why ?

Seriously!

We can all lament and/or voice our viewpoints, but let's stop for a moment and just imagine......imagine we work for DVC in whatever role today. Imagine what kind of "guests" we would be dealing with. Oh MY. I'm glad it's not me there today!!!

 

[CMNJ]

I agree with the predicament people are in that have active contracts with Disney and I have a feeling that will be resolved in a week or so. They are most likely already discussing what constitutes a cut off point for being grandfathered and how they can do it. It will most likely have to be that Disney has received the contract package so they can prove it, where as having to have people send in signed contracts isn't very feasible. I think most people will end up ok on it in the end.

As for notice, I think there is a good reason to not give notice. I can only imagine if they said in four weeks, if you buy resale you won't get these benefits...people on the fence will be rushing out to get a contract signed and sent in and it would have compounded the problem they already have, which is the pending sales.

I would imagine the reason for not giving notice is that potential resale buyers may also be potential direct buyers given the right circumstances/motivation. When we decided to buy in late 2014 we actually were on the waiting list for BWV direct and looking at the resale market. We had already booked a cash reservation for our trip the following fall so we were eager to close and use points instead of paying out of pocket. Had this change been made prior to us buying it might have convinced us to pass on the resale contract we ultimately bought. Since we were buying a small contract and the price difference wasn't as great at the time ($125 vs $94 pp). Also we wanted to be members before the 7 month window opened and all near park studios disappeared. I imagine there are other buyers in similar situations-by not giving notice DVD may get some more direct sales. Of course it could also disillusion potential buyers as well.

 

[skier_pete]

I keep spinning things around on this, but Disney potentially does two things with this move:

1) Increase the incentive for people to direct buy - which likely will boost the fraction of direct buyers. This is better for Disney.
2) Potentially reduce the value of resale contracts - TBD. Lower resale contracts means less money for contracts Disney re-buys. This is better for Disney.

Disney doesn't care at all about the resale buyer. The argument made by some is "The Resale buyer is spending money at Disney", but truthfully, so was the original owner. Quite honestly, Disney doesn't even care that much about the Direct buyer once he/she has purchased...but it truth it cares ENOUGH because it wants to keep the good reputation intact. The resale buyer they don't even have that. Admittedly they don't want to completely kill the resale market, because being able to point to the robust prices for resale is a good potential selling point. However, it is better for them to differentiate from resale and direct buy.

I am NOT a Disney apologist in this - I am just saying that everyone has to remember that Disney is not your mom - it's a HEARTLESS corporation.

 

[bwvBound]

I keep spinning things around on this, but Disney potentially does two things with this move:

1) Increase the incentive for people to direct buy - which likely will boost the fraction of direct buyers. This is better for Disney.
2) Potentially reduce the value of resale contracts - TBD. Lower resale contracts means less money for contracts Disney re-buys. This is better for Disney.

Disney doesn't care at all about the resale buyer. The argument made by some is "The Resale buyer is spending money at Disney", but truthfully, so was the original owner. Quite honestly, Disney doesn't even care that much about the Direct buyer once he/she has purchased...but it truth it cares ENOUGH because it wants to keep the good reputation intact. The resale buyer they don't even have that. Admittedly they don't want to completely kill the resale market, because being able to point to the robust prices for resale is a good potential selling point. However, it is better for them to differentiate from resale and direct buy.

I am NOT a Disney apologist in this - I am just saying that everyone has to remember that Disney is not your mom - it's a HEARTLESS corporation.

Add to this that a DVC Contract that does not go through resale simply remains in the inventory of the original owner/s. The longer an owner holds on to the account the less likely they are to use it ... creating 'breakage.' Thus, Disney gets their Annual MF on the unit *and* gets to rent it out as 'unused' to a 'once in a lifetime guest' who will be spending $$$ in the parks, shops, ding venues, etc. This is better for Disney.

 

[Milesjamie]

Grrr. This is really low. As a buyer post-ROFR but pre-closing, to get the mixed messages (OH NO! Oh, phew. OH NO!) is really unpleasant. Poor show, DVC.

 

[skier_pete]

The reality: A resale buyer has paid just as much to Disney as the original owner, since points do not multiply at sold-out resorts. Whether held by one person or another, every point represents the same gross income to Disney over the life of the contract, and the dues are the same no matter who is paying it. There are no increased expenses.

I don't know about this. I purchase a AKV resale contract in 2014. I looked up the original owner's contract. They paid $130 per point in 2010. I paid them $74 a point in 2014. They got four years out of their $56, at a cost of $18.6 per point per year. Assuming I don't sell, I get 43 years out of my $74, or $1.72 per point. I think the original owner paid a LOT more.