RESALE POLICY CHANGE!

[skier_pete]

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.

Do a lot of people revert there points back to Disney unused? Barring a sudden cancelation of a trip, I couldn't see ANY reason I would let points go unused.

 

[hcortesis]

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

But the original purchaser represents "Net" income to Disney. The resale buyer offers nothing to Disney on the re-purchase of those originally bought points. Disney has already made their money from the original sale and makes nothing from the re-sale. There is nothing in it for Disney when those points continue to sell on the re-sale market.

Disney wants that re-sale customer to become a Direct purchaser. That's how they profit from a sale.

 

[bwvBound]

Do a lot of people revert there points back to Disney unused? Barring a sudden cancelation of a trip, I couldn't see ANY reason I would let points go unused.

The timeshare industry counts on breakage and builds revenue programs around recouping the available surplus time. Some timeshare products offer the available space back to their owners in the form of "Bonus Time" (a last-minute cash rental) ... others move the inventory from the club to the CRO for non-member access at 30 days ....

I'm sure the number of "unused points" from this Community, yourself included, is very small -- however we are but a drop in the bucket. It is estimated that most timeshares are used and enjoyed for ~10 years. By the time the owner reaches their 10 year anniversary, they've possibly experienced one or more life changes (loss of job or spouse; relocation) and they cut back their use. During those same years the rules regarding their timeshare use change ... and who has time to keep up?

We, on this community, are rabid to track changes and keep up, for now. Someday, perhaps, we too will be distracted by a life event ... that causes us to skip a year or two ... eventually triggering a difficult decision to sell ... or simply continue paying the dues to avoid that decision. It happens.

 

[gdrj]

Still not enough to pay retail.

But. Very spiteful.

So. New effective strategy: buy 150 points resale and add a 25 point direct kicker. This new restriction will only work if DVC goes back to not selling small contracts.

I don't know if I would say spiteful. I see it as protecting their product. Personally I hope they get rid of selling small 25 and 50 point contracts (unless adding on to an existing contract). The small contracts IMO tie up days and weekends during times that make it hard to book a full vacation. As a consumer I understand why some people like them. Buy enough points for 2 or 3 days during F&W or Holidays etc.

 

[JimMIA]

I purchase a AKV resale contract in 2014. I looked up the original owner's contract. They paid $130 per point in 2010.

Therefore, Disney received $130 gross income (not net, as someone stated) for those points. End of story.

How many nights someone stayed, or how many years they own, or what any owner calculates (or perceives) as their value over the span of their ownership, is totally irrelevant to Disney They got $130 per point.

 

[JimMIA]

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.

I would quibble a little with #2.

I don't think this will have any impact on the resale market, nor do I think Disney cares what the resale market does.

Disney doesn't care at all about the resale buyer.

Agree, and honestly I don't think Disney cares about the direct buyer either...until and unless they want to do an add-on. DVD is in business to sell timeshares -- nothing else. Their business is to build timeshare units, and sell them. Period.

This whole thing is about one thing -- giving DVD's timeshare salespersons a talking point against resale. It's not about "fair" or valuing customers, or even Disney's "reputation." It's about giving the sales weasels a talking point.

And I have to say, with the elimination of the AP discount, DVD has finally come up with a home run.

They have finally taken away something that is actually of some real value to timeshare owners...as long as that perk continues, of course. There is finally -- at least for now -- a benefit to buying direct that actually matters. Not many timeshare sales organizations can make that claim.

You'd have to be an abject moron to think it matters enough to justify buying direct -- but direct buyers are a naive lot.

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.

Yep -- been saying for years, "Your 'Guide' is not your friend; they are timeshare salesmen."

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Agree, and honestly I don't think Disney cares about the direct buyer either...until and unless they want to do an add-on.

This cannot be said enough. Once points have been paid for to Disney, you are chopped liver.

 

[JimMIA]

Do a lot of people revert there points back to Disney unused? Barring a sudden cancelation of a trip, I couldn't see ANY reason I would let points go unused.

Yes, points do go unused. Keep in mind that most DVC owners are NOT here on the DIS and most are not nearly as knowledgeable as folks here. Many people forget to bank, cancel with points going into holding that don't get used, etc. As bwvBound said above, that breakage is part of the calculation for the timeshare developer. They know it will occur...and they bank on it.

 

[ziravan]

But the original purchaser represents "Net" income to Disney. The resale buyer offers nothing to Disney on the re-purchase of those originally bought points. Disney has already made their money from the original sale and makes nothing from the re-sale. There is nothing in it for Disney when those points continue to sell on the re-sale market.

Disney wants that re-sale customer to become a Direct purchaser. That's how they profit from a sale.

Every point has two major cost components: developer cost and MF.

DVC gets their developer fees paid once on each point, no matter how many times resold.

If I buy a house from a developer, and then I resell, should the developer get more money?

Here's what I think bothers me truly about this: DVD and Disney makes a ton of money from DVC sales. It's a huge money maker that keeps on giving: new resorts, frequent guests, subsidization of its deluxe resorts, etc etc.

I don't think it's too much to ask, by a direct buyer committing to decades of loyalty, that DVC also commit to the same level of loyalty to those points.

When DVC sells a fifty year point, it knows that point must be managed for fifty years.

For DVC to put its new sales over that commitment to those points is crappy business. It sends the message that as a current owner, I become baggage to DVC the moment the ink is dry.

It's just business. Used to be, customer service WAS their business.

When you're conducting business in the five figure range, loyalty is a prime consideration. What five figure purchase have you recently made without some warranty or insurance to insure fidelity to the product?

With Disney, that fidelity has been their reputation. This crap is a reputation killer.

 

[ScubaCat]

This cannot be said enough. Once points have been paid for to Disney, you are chopped liver.

It could be worse. If you're a Verizon customer, you're an "ARPU" (pronounced exactly how it's spelled... 'ARR-POO') which stands for "average revenue per user". That's how they refer to their customers, internally and on their public filings.

 

[bwvBound]

It could be worse. If you're a Verizon customer, you're an "ARPU" (pronounced exactly how it's spelled... 'ARR-POO') which stands for "average revenue per user". That's how they refer to their customers, internally and on their public filings.

Thanks for the new lingo. To the church finance committee, you are considered a Tithing Unit.

 

[drusba]

I confirmed with Member Administration today that the new Membership Extras exclusions do not apply to already existing members who purchased resale before April 4,2016, and they will not apply to your children who, after April 4,2016, receive your pre-April 4,2016 membership interest via a gift or inheritance transfer from you.

 

[beer dave]

Ok-- so I am late to this party-- read up to page 8 and it all seemed redundant-- so I apologize if this was said--

Anyone think that with the recent addition of perks we have been receiving, that maybe it will be good for the current owners (of either qualification) to be able to obtain the future perks to come? think about this-- Dvd is drastically increasing or has increased the cost of membership-- to entice future purchases of their ever growing current offerings, they are increasing benefits to try to match the exclusivity (?) of the new pricing.......

Maybe the perk portion is about to take some leaps ahead, and they want to limit it to the high priced purchases... not saying it is right, but saying we all might be heading for some decent benefits. At least until they change them..... Enjoy it while it lasts?

And when the resale plummets, because next DVC will crack down on the rental market, I will be happy to pick up some low priced resale.

 

[DVCMinnie2532]

Ok-- so I am late to this party-- read up to page 8 and it all seemed redundant-- so I apologize if this was said--

Anyone think that with the recent addition of perks we have been receiving, that maybe it will be good for the current owners (of either qualification) to be able to obtain the future perks to come? think about this-- Dvd is drastically increasing or has increased the cost of membership-- to entice future purchases of their ever growing current offerings, they are increasing benefits to try to match the exclusivity (?) of the new pricing.......

Maybe the perk portion is about to take some leaps ahead, and they want to limit it to the high priced purchases... not saying it is right, but saying we all might be heading for some decent benefits. At least until they change them..... Enjoy it while it lasts?

And when the resale plummets, because next DVC will crack down on the rental market, I will be happy to pick up some low priced resale.

Exactly my thoughts! I haven't viewed any convo yet from that point of view.

 

[agie65]

As a longtime member that bought when the minimum was over 200 points I think they should not allow someone to buy 25 points add-on JUST to get the benefits/perks. Seems very unfair to those that played by the DVC rules of purchase. Yes, I paid less per point back then, but everything cost less in the 90's...houses, cars, you name it. It's all relative. No offense but it just seems very inequitable that someone could have all perks/benefits for a 25 point purchase.

I have direct and resale both. I am quoting what the current policy is. Sure DVD/DVC can not continue the policy of 200 point min, if that continues it will take forever for DVD to sell Poly.

DVD is hurting with Poly and end result is these restriction to give some more ammunition to sales people to fire on potential buyer. AP discount is biggest one.

 

[robinb]

This cannot be said enough. Once points have been paid for to Disney, you are chopped liver.

Yup.

 

[agie65]

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but I wonder if owners who buy through resale after today, will still not get access by adding on, unless they add on a minimum amount that would be considered a "new membership". It's the owners who get the perks, not the points, so if your membership is not a direct purchase, doesn't matter where your future points come, the owners of that membership wouldn't qualify. I can't imagine that Disney would not have thought about this.

Good point never thought of that, but current member can still buy a different use yr to get another membership number.

People have quoted elsewhere you can buy 25 points as a new member. I thought that min was 50 points. But DVD can raise that too.

 

[RedM94]

Therefore, Disney received $130 gross income (not net, as someone stated) for those points. End of story.

How many nights someone stayed, or how many years they own, or what any owner calculates (or perceives) as their value over the span of their ownership, is totally irrelevant to Disney They got $130 per point.

I have been following along since this story broke. There is a lot of emotions, and rightfully so. In the end it may be for nought. Unfortunately, I don't think they will reverse their decision.

Disney did not receive $130 gross income of these points. They receive $130 in revenue per point. Gross income would be purchase price minus the cost of goods sold. That would equal gross profit / gross income.

 

[RedM94]

I have been following along since this story broke. There is a lot of emotions, and rightfully so. In the end it may be for nought. I really don't think they are going to reverse their decision. Just my opinion.

Disney did not receive $130 gross income of these points. They receive $130 in revenue per point. Gross income would be purchase price minus the cost of goods sold. That would equal gross profit / gross income.

 

[Candlelady]

Since DVC seems to be separating into different classes of owners, what will happen to the benefits if the new DVC at Wilderness Lodge is indeed a DVC II?